PRESIDENT Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin’s meeting in Alaska on August 16, 2025, was a significant diplomatic breakthrough between the two global powers.
Despite the lack of concrete outcomes, the summit was a pivotal moment in international relations. The disappointment of the Europeans over the lack of Putin’s concessions over the Ukrainian war is palpable. Trump’s approach, choosing engagement over confrontation, signals a potential shift in U.S.-Russia relations, a prospect that brings both anticipation and uncertainty. Since the start of his second term on January 20, 2024, President Donald Trump has maintained a distinct policy on the Ukrainian conflict, diverging significantly from the European stance. Trump has blamed Ukraine for initiating the conflict with Russia and labels Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a ‘dictator,’ which has created a stark contrast with the European perspective. The inconclusive meeting between Trump and Zelensky in the White House on February 28, 2025, served as a stark reminder of Trump’s unique approach to the Ukrainian crisis.
From the outset, Russia has maintained a steadfast position on the Ukrainian conflict. Understanding the root causes of Russia’s decision to initiate war against Ukraine in February 2022 is crucial. It is unrealistic to expect a change in Putin’s war policy without addressing these key factors. The primary catalyst for the invasion was NATO’s expansion, a perspective that is integral to understanding Russia’s actions. Notably, joining NATO is a strategic objective for Kyiv that is enshrined in the country’s constitution. Since 2007, President Putin has questioned NATO’s expansion and the transatlantic security architecture. The Kremlin captured two of Georgia’s provinces in reaction to the 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit decision, which was a significant event that granted Georgia and Ukraine membership of the alliance, a move that Russia strongly opposed. The Trump administration had previously shown willingness to normalize diplomatic ties with Moscow, suggested Russia’s re-entry into the G-7 and refrained from labeling Russia’s actions as ‘Aggression.’ On February 12, 2025, Trump and Putin had a 90-minute telephonic conversation. Followed by the meeting between the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Riyadh and the US high-ups’ speeches at the 2025 Munich Security Conference manifest that the Trump Administration chalked a different policy from the Biden Administration towards Moscow. Indeed, the shift in American policy was soothing for the Russians and disturbing for the Europeans.
Without making concessions at the Alaska summit, Putin has marginalised Zelensky and European leaders from the central discussion about the future of Ukraine. In the press conference, Putin gave the impression of inviting Trump to Moscow, instead of sharing a meaningful plan to end the war. He said, “Next time in Moscow.” He is endeavoring to engage Trump on the international economic and political affairs to downgrade the Ukraine war and European security in US-Russia bilateral relations. It seems possible because the Trump Administration prioritizes China and Indo-Pacific security in its foreign and strategic policy.
Putin ruled out a ceasefire until a comprehensive deal is reached. Notably, Trump also agreed to Putin’s approach to ending the war in Ukraine. He wrote on social media that the best way to end the war is “to go directly to a Peace Agreement.” The essential features of the comprehensive deal are the official status of the Russian language in Ukraine, Kyiv accepts the right of the Russian Orthodox Church to operate freely in the country and formal recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, which Moscow seized from Ukraine in 2014. Putin demanded land swaps, i.e., Kyiv would fully withdraw from the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions in return for a Russian pledge to freeze the front lines in the southern areas of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Whereas, Zelenskiy has demanded an immediate ceasefire and rejected retreat from the key Donetsk region, which serves as a crucial defensive structure to prevent Russian attacks deeper into Ukraine. The Alaska summit ended without a breakthrough, leaving the path toward ending the war in Ukraine unclear. Despite Trump’s earnest desire for a ceasefire, Putin remains unwilling to end the three-and-a-half-year war without the acceptance of his demands. This lack of progress at the summit indicates the challenges ahead in resolving the conflict and the potential for it to continue. Putin has gained political and economic dividends through the summit on US territory.
Russia is back in the international diplomatic setting and has evaded any potential American sanctions. Heather Conley, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former top State Department official on European affairs, opined, “This meeting elevates Russia in some ways to an equal status to the United States, which is what he has craved.” The Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, wrote, “For three years, they have been reporting that Russia is in isolation and today they saw the red carpet laid to greet the Russian president in the United States.” Trump can only change Putin’s Ukraine policy by a credible threat of more painful sanctions and expanded military support to Ukraine. The display of the US military power in Alaska would have little impact on Putin because the Kremlin very clearly understands the US military-industrial power and strategic limitations.
—The writer is Prof at the School of Politics and IR, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
