REPORT: Trump Drops Putin, Rejects Anchorage Agreements and Advises Zelensky to Strike Harder

Introduction: When Trump Turns Against Putin's Demands

A major political signal, confirmed by two G7 officials

In the diplomatic war that accompanies the military war in Ukraine, June 27, 2026 could represent a turning point. According to an Axios report cited by the Kyiv Independent, U.S. President Donald Trump expressed at the G7 summit in France a "growing frustration" with Vladimir Putin — and reportedly signaled he might distance himself from the "Anchorage agreements." Two G7 officials confirmed this information to Axios.

This signal matters not because it guarantees a change in American policy — which the same sources were quick to temper — but because it alters the psychological dynamic of the conflict. If Trump is no longer the tacit support Putin had been counting on, the Russian calculation must be revised. And if Ukraine can take advantage of that, it will.

The Anchorage agreements: what Moscow was demanding from Washington

To understand the significance of this potential reversal, it is worth revisiting what the "Anchorage agreements" represented in the Russian worldview. The Kremlin had claimed that during the meeting between Trump and Putin in Anchorage, Alaska in August 2025, "understandings" had been reached — notably the demand that Washington press Ukraine to withdraw completely from the Donbas, including from territories it currently controls.

That demand was, according to a source close to the discussions cited by the Kyiv Independent, "a non-starter for Kyiv." It would require Ukraine to abandon land it has defended with its blood for years. The fact that Trump is now considering rejecting this Russian demand is, for Kyiv, a breath of fresh air in a suffocating situation.

Rubio Cuts the Gordian Knot: "No Deal at Anchorage, Only a Proposal"

The June 25 statement that directly contradicts Moscow

On June 25, 2026, two days before the Axios report on Trump's frustration with Putin, Secretary of State Marco Rubio had already driven a stake through the Russian narrative. Speaking to journalists, Rubio stated bluntly: "There was no agreement at Anchorage. There was a proposal, but no agreement." And he added: "If an agreement had existed, the war would have ended."

That statement is of capital importance. The Kremlin had used the rhetoric of the "Anchorage agreements" as a pressure lever: by claiming that Trump had promised to push Ukraine to withdraw from the Donbas, Moscow could accuse Washington of failing to honor its commitments and cast itself as the victim of American duplicity. Rubio demolished that argument in a single sentence.

Russian officials vent their discontent at the reversal

Moscow's reaction to these developments was characteristic. Russian officials simultaneously denied that Trump had ever been skeptical of Putin, and complained that Washington was not honoring the "Alaska promises." These two contradictory claims reveal a Kremlin disoriented by the volatility of its American interlocutor.

According to Axios, "Trump's skepticism toward Putin and his admission of Zelensky's recent successes may not translate into significant action," per the sources cited. That caveat is honest and necessary. Trump talks a great deal and acts according to his own priorities. But the very fact that Russian officials are expressing discontent indicates that something has changed in the dynamic of that relationship.

"Zelensky Is Doing Well" and "Winning" — Trump Acknowledges Ukraine

Unusual presidential words that carried real weight

On that same June 25, 2026, in public statements, President Trump said that Zelensky "is doing quite well" in the war, referring in particular to recent large-scale Ukrainian attacks on Moscow. He went so far as to say that Ukraine "is winning now." Those statements contrast sharply with the messages of resignation and compromise that Washington had appeared to be sending in recent months.

Why do these words matter? Because Trump's perception of who is "winning" largely determines his level of engagement. A Trump convinced that Ukraine can prevail is more likely to maintain or increase American support than a Trump persuaded that Kyiv is doomed and that the only way out is capitulation. The American president's words are not neutral — they orient bureaucracies, allies, and arms markets.

Trump's private advice to Zelensky: "Be bolder"

This may be the most significant revelation in the entire sequence: a senior Ukrainian official told the Kyiv Independent that Trump had privately advised Zelensky to act "more boldly" against Russia. That advice, if authentic — and the source is credible — represents an implicit endorsement of the Ukrainian strategy of controlled escalation.

Ukraine's strikes on Moscow, on Russian oil refineries, on military depots in Russian territory — all of this fits within a deliberate strategy of bringing the war to the aggressor's own soil. If Trump privately encourages this approach while maintaining an ambiguous public stance, Ukraine benefits from tacit latitude from the world's foremost power. That is valuable, even if it is not sufficient.

The G7 Context in France: Trump's Frustration, Away from the Cameras

A multilateral forum where the real discussions happen backstage

It was at the G7 summit in France in early June 2026 that Trump expressed his frustration with Putin, according to the two government officials cited by Axios. In that setting, away from cameras and official statements, the leaders of the world's seven largest economic democracies speak more freely.

The fact that Trump expressed this skepticism in that context — and that two officials reported it to Axios — is probably not accidental. These controlled leaks are part of the diplomatic language: they send a signal to Moscow without formally committing the White House. Putin reads Axios. His advisers read Axios. The message is received.

The limits of Trumpian frustration as foreign policy

One official cited by Axios offered the necessary reality check: "Trump was skeptical of everything about Putin, and he talked about pressuring Russia, but other leaders don't believe he'll actually do something about it." That sentence is a realistic cold shower. Between frustration expressed at a G7 dinner and a policy of increased support for Ukraine, there is a chasm called Washington.

Trump's European partners have long learned to separate what he says from what he does — and not to reliably infer one from the other. Frustration with Putin can evaporate if Putin offers Trump a moment of diplomatic glory, a superficial ceasefire announcement, anything that resembles a "win" for the American president.

The "Anchorage Agreements": Anatomy of a Russian Myth

What Moscow claimed to have obtained

The notion of the "Anchorage agreements" deserves careful deconstruction, because it poisoned diplomatic discussions for months. The meeting between Trump and Putin in Anchorage, Alaska in August 2025 was presented by the Kremlin as a historic summit where the two men had found common ground on resolving the Ukrainian conflict. Moscow drew the conclusion that Washington had committed to pressing Kyiv to withdraw from its current positions in the Donbas.

That narrative served several Russian objectives simultaneously: legitimizing Russia's territorial claims by pretending that even the United States recognized them, diplomatically isolating Ukraine by giving the impression that its primary protector had traded it away, and driving a wedge between Washington and Kyiv. It was an elaborate narrative construction, typical of Russian information doctrine.

How Washington finally deflated the balloon

Rubio's statement of June 25 put an end to that fiction. By publicly qualifying the "Anchorage agreements" as mere "proposals," the Trump administration stripped Moscow of its primary rhetorical pressure lever. It clarified that the United States had not committed to delivering Ukraine to the Kremlin at that summit — and that any claim to the contrary amounted to Russian disinformation.

Russian officials found themselves in an uncomfortable position: either accept this clarification and lose their narrative leverage, or insist on their version and further antagonize Washington. They chose a third path — continuing to complain that the United States was not honoring its commitments, while denying that Trump was genuinely displeased. This rhetorical contortion speaks volumes about the diplomatic panic in Moscow.

What This Turning Point Means for Kyiv and Ukrainian Strategy

More room to maneuver for Ukraine

If the rejection of the "Anchorage agreements" is confirmed in deeds — not only in Rubio's words and Trump's G7 moods — Ukraine finds itself with more diplomatic space. It is no longer under pressure to accept unacceptable territorial concessions in the framework of an American-Russian deal negotiated without it. It can negotiate, should it ever choose to do so, from a position of relative strength rather than capitulation.

This context also favors the 40-day strategy approved by Zelensky on June 25: striking hard at Russia on its own territory, degrading its logistical and military capacities, demonstrating that Ukraine can inflict significant costs. If Trump privately supports this approach, Ukraine is less exposed to the de-escalation pressures that had constrained its operations in previous months.

The risks of depending on American moods

That said, Ukraine would be unwise to build its strategy on the shifting moods of an American president. Trump can be "skeptical of Putin" on a Tuesday and close a superficial peace deal on a Friday if he sees political gain in it. Institutional alliances and guarantees — the Ukraine-NATO Council, the 70-billion-euro commitments at Ankara, bilateral security agreements with European NATO members — are structurally more reliable than presidential moods.

Zelensky knows this. That is why he simultaneously cultivates his personal relationship with Trump and his institutional relationships with NATO and European partners. This dual strategy is the only one resilient enough to withstand American unpredictability.

Implications for the Ankara Summit and Western Support

An American signal at the right moment for the NATO summit

The publication of the Axios report on June 27 — less than two weeks before the NATO summit in Ankara — is probably not coincidental. It sends European allies a signal that Washington, under Trump, is not ready to sacrifice Ukraine on the altar of a phony deal with Moscow. This frees European allies from the pressure of filling an imminent American vacuum, even if they must continue to compensate for the reduction in direct American aid.

For Secretary General Rutte, this context is favorable. His mission at Ankara is already difficult: securing concrete commitments in a context of war fatigue and rising populism in Europe. A signal that Trump will not actively torpedo European support for Ukraine is valuable for maintaining allied cohesion.

What Trump will actually do: the persistent unknown

The uncomfortable truth is that no one knows what Trump will actually do. Axios cited its sources with notable precision: Trump's skepticism toward Putin "may not translate into significant action." G7 leaders "don't believe he'll actually do something." These qualifications are essential and honest.

What allies can do is build structures of support for Ukraine robust enough to survive the inevitable Trumpian reversals. European financing mechanisms independent of the White House. Weapons deliveries managed directly by NATO members without going through the American administration. A Ukraine armed strongly enough to keep fighting even if Trump decides tomorrow to change course.

Ukrainians on the Ground: Diplomacy Does Not Change the Shells That Fall

The reality at the front while Washington talks

While diplomats analyzed Trump's frustration and the non-agreements of Anchorage, Ukrainian soldiers were living through one of the most violent weeks of 2026. The massive attack of July 2 on Kyiv, with its 570 aerial weapons, its 20 dead and its collapsed buildings, is the concrete reality in which the Ukrainian people live while the world's great powers debate diplomatic nuances. The war does not pause for press releases.

On the Donbas front, Russian assaults continue. More than 259 engagements were recorded in a single day around July 2, including 33 in the Pokrovsk sector alone. Every hour of favorable American diplomacy is an hour during which Ukrainian soldiers defend positions with counted ammunition. This context must remain visible behind the geopolitical analyses.

What ordinary Ukrainians think of Trump

Ukrainian distrust of Trump is deep and well documented. After months of ambiguous signals, threats to cut aid, pressure for unacceptable territorial compromises, Ukrainian enthusiasm for good news from Washington is tempered by experience. They appreciate positive signals. They do not blindly trust them.

This healthy skepticism is not ingratitude. It is the wisdom of those who have directly experienced the consequences of American policy shifts. Kyiv knows that every Patriot delivered is worth more than a hundred positive statements from the White House. And that a course change from Trump on the Anchorage agreements, if it holds, will not protect Kyiv from the next Zircon — only new Patriot systems can do that.

Conclusion: A Partial Turning Point in a Total War

A change in tone, not yet in policy

Trump's frustration with Putin, Rubio's declaration on the "non-agreements of Anchorage," and the private advice to Zelensky to "strike harder" together constitute a significant change in tone in the American posture. It is not yet a change in policy — weapons deliveries have not resumed at their previous rate, sanctions on Russia have not tightened, and American troops are not moving toward Ukraine.

But in the information and perception war that accompanies the physical conflict, these signals count. They alter the psychology of the actors: Putin can no longer rely on tacit American complicity. Zelensky has a little more room to maneuver. European allies face a little less pressure to fill an immediate American vacuum. And ordinary Ukrainians know their fight has not been written off by Washington before it has been won on the ground.

What Kyiv should take away

Zelensky is a pragmatist. He knows that Ukraine's survival does not depend on Trump's moods — it depends on his army's capacity to hold, to strike, and to compel the world to keep investing in its resistance. Ukraine's recent deep strikes in Russian territory, the 40-day campaign approved in late June, the naval successes in the Black Sea — all of this builds the position of strength that Ukraine needs.

Trump's skepticism toward Putin is a conjunctural diplomatic windfall. Zelensky takes it. But he builds on solid ground — his alliances with Europe, his own military capabilities, and the indisputable moral legitimacy of a people defending its sovereignty against a criminal act of aggression.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

My sources and their reliability

The information in this article rests primarily on the Axios report of June 27, 2026, as reported and analyzed by the Kyiv Independent. The two G7 officials cited by Axios are anonymous, which is standard in diplomatic journalism but requires analytical caution. Rubio's statement is public and verifiable. Trump's private advice to Zelensky comes from an unnamed Ukrainian source — I report it with the appropriate nuance.

My biases and the limits of this article

I am pro-Ukraine and firmly believe that Western support for Ukraine is morally and strategically indispensable. This may lead me to read positive signals from Washington with more optimism than the available data strictly justifies. I have tried to counterbalance that tendency by including the explicit caveats from Axios's own sources. Diplomatic developments around the Trump administration are moving very fast — some conclusions in this article may be overtaken by events within days of publication.

Sources

Primary sources

Kyiv Independent — Trump "skeptical" of Putin, may dismiss Alaska summit demands per Axios — June 27, 2026

Ukrpravda — Diplomatic developments Trump-Putin-Ukraine — June 28, 2026

Foreign Policy — NATO, Trump, Erdoğan, Ankara summit, European defense, Russia — June 29, 2026

Secondary sources

The Guardian — Ukraine war briefing: Putin expects US negotiators in Moscow — June 29, 2026

Al Jazeera — Russia-Ukraine war: why Putin has rejected limits on long-range strikes — June 29, 2026

Euromaidan Press — Rutte to Trump: European rearmament supports 195,000 US jobs — July 1, 2026