In comparing and contrasting the news articles from various outlets regarding the upcoming Trump-Putin summit in Alaska, several key points of agreement and divergence emerge.

### Points of Agreement

1. Location and Symbolism: All articles concur that the summit is taking place in Alaska, highlighting its significance as a historical point of connection between the U.S. and Russia. The region's past as a former Russian territory is noted by many as symbolically pertinent to the discussions.

2. Exclusion of Ukraine: Both liberal and conservative articles agree that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has not been invited to the summit, raising fears among Ukraine and European allies about decisions being made without Kyiv's input.

3. Divergent Goals and Challenges: There is a consensus that the summit aims to address the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, particularly focusing on territorial disputes and the possibility of a ceasefire. The expectations for actual progress or concrete outcomes, however, remain low across most articles.

### Points of Disagreement

1. Tone and Implications:
The liberal articles (e.g., New York Times, NBC News) tend to emphasize potential risks of the summit, suggesting that Trump may be manipulated by Putin, given past experiences and Trump's unconventional diplomatic style.
Conservative outlets (e.g., The Blaze, Fox News, Breitbart) generally portray the summit more positively, suggesting Trump's approach may lead to a breakthrough and highlighting past successes in brokering peace deals in other regions.

2. Focus on Trump's Strategy:
Liberal articles are more critical of Trump's past engagements with Putin, highlighting concerns of inadequate advisory support and potential concessions that might favor Russia.
Conservative articles emphasize Trump's proactive stance in seeking peace and stress the importance of reducing U.S. financial support for Ukraine, suggesting this could pressure Kyiv into negotiations.

3. Perception of Outcomes:
Liberal outlets are skeptical about any meaningful resolution emerging from the meeting, often noting Putin’s advantage at the negotiation table.
Conservative sources express cautious optimism, noting that while both sides may face dissatisfaction, the end of foreign military expenditures by the U.S. would be well-received domestically.

### Reality Between the Biases

In synthesizing these perspectives, the reality seems to lie somewhere between the extremes presented by these biases. The summit indeed holds symbolic and strategic significance, and there is a broad-based expectation that it could set the stage for further negotiations. The exclusion of Ukraine from initial talks is widely criticized and raises legitimate concerns about legitimacy and effectiveness in peacebuilding. Trump’s approach might lead to short-term agreements or understanding, but meaningful, binding resolutions are improbable without Ukraine and EU involvement. Additionally, while financial concerns resonate with American public opinion, ensuring a sustainable and just solution for Ukraine aligns with broader international legal and moral standards. Thus, caution and realism, paired with proactive diplomacy involving all stakeholders, might forge a more balanced narrative about the summit.