From his demeanor and the objectives he set, it seems President Donald Trump was not pleased with the results of his meeting with Russia’s Vladimir Putin in Alaska.
“I can’t leave without some form of ceasefire,” he told Fox News’ Bret Baier just hours before his arrival in Anchorage. “There will be very serious consequences,” he added, referencing warnings he’d made days earlier.
True to his unpredictable nature, Trump has a knack for straddling what is known yet still has to confront earlier threats. Following a devastating airstrike on Kiev that claimed 31 lives, he expressed his discontent with Russia’s actions and threatened new sanctions.
This summit marked a significant turning point, especially on American soil. Trump entered the meeting, perhaps hoping it could be a breakthrough, but he left without achieving his primary goal—a ceasefire.
Instead, he received a combination of flattery and vague promises for future cooperation, alongside a lengthy discussion on the historical context of Russia and Ukraine, possibly accompanied by maps that Putin had brought.
It is unfortunate that, like his former envoy, Trump seems to have fallen prey to a series of Russian maneuvers that, unlike past empty promises regarding Syria, threaten to undermine US credibility.
“We don’t need to consider sanctions,” Trump remarked enthusiastically post-meeting, giving the session a “10 out of 10” rating.
His shift from demanding a ceasefire to discussing broader peace terms reflects Russian talking points about understanding the “root cause” of the conflict.
Reports suggesting Trump might support a plan for Ukraine to concede territory in Donetsk and Luhansk for peace could lead to a serious misstep for his administration—putting Putin in a position to claim what he could not achieve militarily for a decade.
This “trade” does not promise lasting peace. With ongoing threats to Ukraine throughout Eastern Europe, such exchanges could jeopardize the Transatlantic Alliance, and Trump’s approach could negatively impact trade with Ukraine.
Ultimately, the enduring issue is not the territory but rather Putin’s self-image as a historical successor to notable past leaders. Ukraine’s safety will remain in jeopardy until he lets go of that narrative.
A temporary halt to the “hot” war may occur, but a divided Ukraine, abandoned by key Western allies, creates fertile ground for further Russian aggression through alternative methods.
The US and its allies can help ensure Putin’s failures. A bipartisan bill proposed by Senators Graham and Blumenthal could effectively impose a trade embargo on countries buying Russian oil, applying significant financial pressure.
Meanwhile, US military aid has given Ukraine a vital edge on the battlefield, improving aspects like precision artillery and air defense. European nations are looking to support further transfers of US military equipment, which wouldn’t cost American taxpayers.
First and foremost, existing sanctions must be enforced effectively. It’s somewhat of a cat-and-mouse game, as Russians continually attempt to sidestep Congress-mandated sanctions. The Treasury Department rolled out numerous updates to sanctions lists during the Biden presidency to maintain pressure.
These continuous adjustments seem to have stalled after Trump’s administration took over. It could have been worthwhile to try a more diplomatic approach, considering America’s vulnerability in the face of Putin’s ambitions.
At a brief press conference in Anchorage, Putin expressed hope that “Kiev and the European capitals will not throw wrenches in the work.”
If creating obstacles means ensuring the US stands firm alongside its European allies and Ukraine, then I genuinely hope that President Trump will engage with Ukrainian President Voldy Mirzelensky and key European leaders soon.
