Poonam Sharma
When Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump sat together in Anchorage this week, the image itself was dramatic. A Cold War-era military outpost in Alaska, snow-covered peaks on the horizon, and two men whose ideologies are as far apart as can be sitting together across a table. Behind the handshakes and photographs, however, is a deep divergence of interest—one that could frame not only the course of the Russia-Ukraine war, but the course of the global order as well.
Trump’s Gamble: The Peacemaker’s Spotlight
For Trump, the Anchorage summit is an act of high-wire political theater. Having gone back to the White House with a vow to “end the war in Europe in a few months,” he views this encounter as an opportunity to reinforce his reputation as the greatest dealmaker of all. His public story is straightforward: get Putin to the negotiating table, stop the killing, and push Kyiv and Moscow into a peace agreement that can be billed as an American diplomatic victory.
But Trump’s approach is as much about leverage as it is about negotiation. His threat to sanction big consumers of Russian oil, including China and India, indicates a willingness to weaponize the economic power of the U.S. to pressure Moscow into concessions. This is vintage Trumpian deal-making: establish an outlandish position, bluff the opponent with enforcement options, then present a “win-win” compromise that can be framed as a breakthrough.
But there is also a latent contradiction. Trump assures European allies that Ukraine’s sovereignty will not be traded away on terms to which Kyiv is not a party, but his decision to leave Ukraine out of the initial round of negotiations contradicts that very principle. It is a mixed message—one that may undermine his credibility in Kyiv as well as in European capitals that still recall the bruising years of his initial term.
Putin’s Play: Normalization Through Negotiation
For Putin, the Summit in Anchorage is not a matter of a speedy end to war—it is a matter of a new political configuration of war. His main aim is to obtain de facto acknowledgement of Russian control of Ukrainian territory, consolidating military victories gained at a heavy price. By sitting down with Trump on American soil, he achieves a strong symbolic triumph: the photo of a Russian leader, indicted by the International Criminal Court, being greeted for top-level negotiations by the head of the world’s most influential democracy.
This normalization accomplishes a few things. At home, it supports his story that Russia has weathered Western ostracism and is back to being a preeminent world power. Abroad, it erodes the Western consensus that Moscow should be treated as a pariah until it retreats from occupied lands.
Putin also has a strategic motive for consenting to this meeting: in order to unbundle the Ukraine question from other elements of U.S.–Russia relations, including arms control, energy markets, and sanctions relief. By meeting Trump himself—and without Ukraine on hand—Putin stands to negotiate the destiny of Eastern Europe on his own terms without granting Kyiv equal leverage.
A Summit Without the Principal Stakeholder
The most obvious shortcoming of this summit is the omission of Ukraine. The notion of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” has been a pillar of Western diplomacy ever since Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion. By excluding Kyiv from the early negotiations, Trump and Putin stand to embolden the perception of a two-man divide of Eastern Europe—a perception that risks fracturing transatlantic cohesion and encouraging Moscow to stand firm for improved concessions.
From the point of view of Ukraine, it is an uneasy reminder of the darker times of the 20th century, when great powers were cutting deals above the heads of smaller states. Even though Trump claims Zelenskyy will be invited in later, the trust may have suffered irrevocable harm already.
Europe’s Cautious Distance
European leaders are coming to Anchorage with respectful skepticism. Germany’s Chancellor Merz and France’s President Macron have publicly emphasized that the agreement must honor Ukraine’s territorial integrity and include credible security assurances. In private, European diplomats worry that Trump’s desire for a publicity-seeking peace accord would result in concessions promoting Russian aggression.
There is also the issue of NATO’s credibility. If an American president sends a message that alliances are conditional and security guarantees negotiable, the deterrent effect of the alliance itself could wear off—something Moscow would welcome.
The Political Backdrop
Trump’s domestic political incentives are as relevant as the geopolitical interests. Entering a chaotic second term, he has a vested interest in proving that his foreign policy inclinations—frequently maligned as erratic—can produce concrete payoffs. A symbolic achievement with Putin would provide him with a powerful midterms and beyond campaign narrative.
For Putin, the mathematics are easier. The longer the war lasts, the longer he has to deal with economic hardship and combat losses. Even without granting Washington significant concessions, merely showing up at a summit on equal terms bolsters his reputation back home and plants discord among his enemies overseas.
The Risks Ahead
The Anchorage summit may yield a venue for subsequent negotiations, but it will not solve the underlying issues. Putin has no reason to give up land that he already occupies, and Trump’s hesitation to promise military escalation against Russia negates his leverage. Without Ukraine at the table, any tentative deal stands little chance of making it out of Kyiv alive.
There’s also reputational risk for Trump. Should the summit conclude without tangible progress, his critics will characterize it as a propaganda success for Putin and a diplomatic blunder for Washington.
Conclusion: A Stage Set for Divergence
The Anchorage summit is not the dawn of peace—it is the dawn of a test. For Trump, the test is whether he is able to convert personal diplomacy into a lasting geopolitical result. For Putin, the test is whether he is able to convert battlefield gridlock into strategic gain through diplomacy.
Their objectives diverge, and their inducements overlap at most halfway. Trump seeks an agreement that can be marketed as a personal victory; Putin seeks a process that stabilizes his conquests. The question is whether these profoundly incompatible objectives can yield anything more than a momentary photo op.
For the time being, the world waits to see two men with greatly divergent endgames struggle to pen the next chapter of a conflict that has already reshaped the map of Europe. Whether Anchorage becomes a staging point on the path to peace or merely one more place in the extensive history of failed summits will be determined by events after the cameras depart—and whether Ukraine at last sits at the table.
Comments are closed.