Trump-Putin Alaska Summit: A Look Back at the Controversial Talks and Their Lingering Impact on Ukraine

In a diplomatic encounter that drew widespread criticism, often dubbed ‘the most vomit-inducing episode in international diplomacy’ by figures like Boris Johnson, the highly anticipated Alaska summit between then-US President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin concluded. The discussions, lasting nearly three hours, and the subsequent statements from both leaders, became immediate subjects of intense analysis, particularly concerning the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

During the summit, Vladimir Putin notably employed a strategy of flattery towards Donald Trump. He reinforced the narrative that the war in Ukraine would not have escalated had Trump remained president, stating, ‘I tried to convince my previous American colleague that it should not be the point of no return when it came to hostilities. Trump has said that if he was President, there would have been no war … I can confirm that.’ Putin also emphasized shared historical ties and spoke warmly of the United States as a neighbor.

Despite Putin’s overt flattery, Trump failed to achieve his primary objective for the meeting: a ceasefire in Ukraine. The implications of this perceived snub, despite the apparent camaraderie on the tarmac in Alaska, were a subject of immediate speculation. Analysts observed that Putin appeared significantly more upbeat than Trump at the summit, largely because the Russian leader emerged as the clear victor. He was seen smiling broadly upon arrival and appeared ebullient when delivering his post-summit remarks. Putin conceded nothing, avoided further American sanctions, and secured an undertaking from Trump for a subsequent meeting, potentially in Moscow. Russian state media extensively highlighted the positive outcomes for Russia, including what they portrayed as the humiliation of American soldiers who laid the red carpet for Putin.

Putin’s success in delaying any ceasefire or resolution to the conflict effectively granted him continued leeway for ground and aerial assaults against Ukraine. Crucially, the summit solidified Putin’s understanding of Trump’s diplomatic approach. Part of Putin’s broad smile upon departure likely stemmed from the realization that this dynamic was now clear to observers worldwide.

Putin’s flattery also served as an attempt to ensure any future meetings with Trump would be one-on-one, excluding Ukraine. This move aimed to pave the way for further bilateral discussions, as Putin, a skilled manipulator, understood that a single meeting would not yield all his desired outcomes. The prospect of future engagements was also seen as a means to evade American sanctions.

A critical aspect of the summit was Putin’s insistence that the ‘root causes’ of the conflict must be resolved, indicating no shift from his core war objectives: the destruction of Ukraine’s sovereignty, the erosion of its defensive capabilities, and preventing its NATO membership. These points remained significant sticking points for Ukraine and European leaders, who sought to avoid setting precedents for future Russian aggression.

The events of the summit dashed any lingering hope among Ukrainians and many Europeans that Trump might deviate from his admiration for Putin and support Ukraine in achieving a just peace. Within 24 hours of the summit, further details emerged about the leaders’ discussions. Trump notably endorsed Putin’s stance that a ceasefire was unnecessary, advocating for direct negotiations towards a ‘war termination agreement’ rather than a mere ceasefire. He articulated this on his social media platform, stating, ‘the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.’ This position implied that Ukraine would have to continue fighting while negotiating under duress. Ironically, Trump’s dismissal of ceasefires overlooked Putin’s track record of breaking every peace agreement he had negotiated over the preceding two decades.

Following the summit, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy engaged in a lengthy phone call with Trump, during which the US President reportedly raised the possibility of American involvement in guaranteeing Ukraine’s security—a new development given the Trump administration’s previous resistance to such guarantees. Zelenskyy was scheduled to visit Washington D.C. that week for discussions with Trump, accompanied by other European leaders, including Germany’s Friedrich Merz, France’s Emmanuel Macron, UK PM Keir Starmer, and Finland’s Alexander Stubb, aiming to prevent a repeat of the ‘awful spectacle’ witnessed in the Oval Office earlier that year.

While some might have viewed the Alaska summit as a success because no Ukrainian territory was formally traded, only the most optimistic could reach such a conclusion. Editorials in Ukrainian and other news outlets within the 24 hours post-summit frequently described the outcome as a ‘stab in the back.’ The faint hope that Trump might support Ukraine for a just peace seemed increasingly unattainable.

Within 48 hours of the Alaska summit’s conclusion, Ukraine announced the serial production of a new long-range missile, dubbed the ‘Flamingo,’ with a range of 3000 kilometers. This move served as a clear message to both America and Russia that Ukraine maintained its agency and would continue its campaign against Russian oil refineries and other strategic targets. Ultimately, the summit changed little on the ground in Ukraine; fighting persisted, and Russia continued its aerial attacks both before and after the Alaska talks. For Ukrainians, the grim reality remained that the war would continue without respite.

阅读中文版 (Read Chinese Version)

Disclaimer: This content is aggregated from public sources online. Please verify information independently. If you believe your rights have been infringed, contact us for removal.