Truth and Resistance Dove Logo
Know what you should know!

Home     Categories     Search     Subscribe

Trump and Putin's dueling summit strategies: ANALYSIS

abcnews.go.com -- Friday, August 15, 2025, 5:28:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, Media Coverage & Press Relations
Trump and Putin's dueling summit strategies: ANALYSIS

ABC News asked policy experts about the potential risks and rewards for each.

Both President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have spent the run-up to Friday's high-stakes meeting in Alaska staking out their public positions -- and signaling the strategies they may employ behind closed doors.

ABC News spoke to current and former officials as well as outside policy experts to break down both Trump and Putin's approach and the potential risks and rewards for each.

Ahead of the summit, the White House initially tried to downplay expectations, first calling it a "listening session" for Trump to hear Putin's position on bringing the war in Ukraine to a close.

Through the week, Trump stopped short of making any promises, but he slowly began to build expectations, describing the summit with Putin as a steppingstone that -- if successful -- would set up another meeting that would include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

"This meeting sets up the second meeting, but there is a 25% chance that this meeting will not be a successful meeting," Trump said in a Fox News Radio interview on Thursday.

But Trump suggested if the summit with Putin were productive, it could set off a near-immediate whirlwind of diplomacy, with subsequent engagements happening very soon after the initial meeting and potentially at the same venue.

"All I want to do is set the table for the next meeting, which should happen shortly. I'd like to see it happen very quickly -- very shortly after this meeting," the president said during an Oval Office event at the White House on Thursday. "I'd like to see it actually happen maybe in Alaska, where we just stay because it's so much easier."

Officials familiar with the president's approach say his comments reflect his willingness to capitalize on opportunities as they may present themselves. They also acknowledged that even though intensive planning for the summit has been underway more than a week, the president could quickly pivot based on his impression of the meeting.

Trump previewed the potential for on-the-fly changes to the summit's programming schedule when he contradicted White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt's statement earlier on Thursday that the plan was to hold a joint news conference at the summit featuring both Trump and Putin.

"I'm going to have a press conference. I don't know if it's going to be a joint. We haven't even discussed it," Trump said, indicating the format would depend on how the meeting went.

Officials say Trump has been working closely with his Secretary of State and interim national security adviser Marco Rubio and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff ahead of the meeting, and that both men are expected to accompany the president to Alaska.

European leaders emerged from a virtual meeting with Trump on Wednesday with tones of relief that the U.S. would be involved in a security mechanism for Ukraine as a part of a settlement of the war - though Trump did not acknowledge such a vow publicly.

Zelenskyy and other European heads of state, who have said Russia's aggression in Ukraine is part of larger Russian ambitions, took part in hurried meetings this week to present consensus priorities to Trump.

From those meetings, the Europeans said a ceasefire should happen first in any Ukraine peace process.

Fred Fleitz, co-chair of the Center for American Security at the America First Policy Institute and a former chief of staff of the National Security Council during Trump's first term, said Trump's participation virtually in the Wednesday meeting will bring the president "a lot of credibility when he speaks to Putin," but ultimately, the peace process is "all Trump."

Trump's "job is to bridge" the parties in the conflict, Fleitz told ABC News, and test whether Putin is sincere about wanting an end to the war. Fleitz said he thinks Trump will have a "very critical eye" toward Putin and be "very quick to implement sanctions" if he judges Putin to be playing him.

Trump has been open in saying Putin might be "tapping him along," a turnabout Fleitz says the "world understands."

Fleitz and other experts who spoke with ABC News said a ceasefire is the most crucial outcome in this stage of the diplomatic process.

"If we're looking at some kind of a success or not" from Friday's meeting, "it has to be [in the] first instance a ceasefire," Bill Taylor, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009 and a top diplomat there under Trump, told ABC News.

If no deliverable emerges from the summit, "then Trump hasn't won," Taylor said. "Trump hasn't gone into those negotiations and succeeded. He will have been defeated, or at least stalled again, and this will be recognized."

George Beeby, director of the Quincy Institute's Grand Strategy Program and a former director of the CIA's Russia analysis, said a ceasefire "that isn't well negotiated" is "actually much more risky" than working out particulars, including over issues like NATO, first.

The key deliverable Friday, in Beeby's view, is "a framework agreement that addresses these core issues and lays out a road map for further negotiations." Broader European security, instead of a temporary pause to the fighting, is the key issue at the table, he said.

Russia would view military forces from NATO countries as a part of a security guarantee for Ukraine as a red line, he said. Instead, Putin will seek a "rock-solid guarantee" that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO in the future -- something Beeby called Putin's "number one issue."

Ian Brzezinski, a senior fellow and the Atlantic Council and a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Europe and NATO policy, said a security guarantee would be essential for Ukraine -- and for the broader west, including the U.S to halt Putin's "revanchism" -- a policy of seeking to retaliate, especially to recover lost territory.

Putin "may try to push" a pledge that Ukraine won't join NATO to "never," but that "can really only ever apply to Trump," Brzezinski said. Any NATO member can veto a country's bid to join the alliance.

Trump has shown sympathy for the Russian position on NATO, blaming Zelenskyy for the war in Ukraine as recently as this week, apparently for his country's past NATO ambitions.

According to Fleitz, NATO may or may not come up in the meeting at all.

"It's a big issue for Putin, but there's no sense" in discussing it because accession to NATO has become exceedingly unlikely, Fleitz said. He said Trump's decision to prioritize American-made weapons, purchased by European nations for Ukraine, showed his commitment to the country's security.

Former officials and experts on the ongoing conflict have warned that Trump should keep his focus during Friday's summit on a potential ceasefire deal between Russia and Ukraine and note that Ukraine's leaders should have final say on territorial concessions -- and they cautioned Trump to remember he is dealing with a shrewd negotiator in Putin.

"President Trump needs to stick to his discussion points and not get carried away by the moment. Putin will be pushing for an agreement favorable to Russia, and Trump might be tempted to agree as a way to end the war, as he has promised," said Mark Cancian, a senior adviser on defense and security issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"It's very concerning that Ukraine is not part of the discussions. Putin does not regard Ukraine as a real country, and its exclusion seems to accept that position. Any follow-on discussions should include both Ukraine and the Europeans," he said.

Other experts suggest that Trump's video conference with European leaders boosted Ukraine's status ahead of Friday's summit and was strategic in helping to reassure allies that the US still backs Zelenskyy's position.

Meetings between European allies and Vice President JD Vance, for example, "was a sign that they want to make sure that they were not going to be blasted for cozying up to Putin in Alaska."

"Zelensky is not coming, but they want to make sure that they don't look like they are fatuous and being played by the Kremlin," said John Herbst, in an interview with ABC News. Herbst is a career diplomat and the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, having served in Ukraine from 2003-2006.

"Putin has no interest in making peace. He starts to talk about negotiations when he's afraid that there may be some new pain for Russia," Herbst said of the Russian leader.

"Putin's gonna try and play Trump, and he may have success. He's had some success in the past, but Trump's guard is up and again. That's why we saw his statement today. That's why we've seen some backtracking for the last three days," Herbst added, noting that Trump said this week that Russia will suffer "severe consequences" should Putin not make efforts to stop the war.

"I think Putin's hope is to really use this event to ensure that there'll be no sanctions in the future, that maybe US arms Ukraine are not going to be flowing. I think that's not going to be the case," Herbst said.

While former officials and experts on the war are worried about Zelenskyy's absence in this initial meeting given what Trump may agree to behind closed doors, Herbst remains optimistic.

"I think worry is always warranted in this case, because the situation is so difficult. But I think it would be a disaster for the United States if we sold out Ukraine," Herbst said. "I thought that could happen, but everything since has pointed in a healthier direction."

Expand

Sign Our Petition


Opinion:

The upcoming summit between President Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin in Alaska serves as a focal point for examining not only the geopolitical implications but also the historical context of U.S.-Russia relations and the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. This meeting is emblematic of the complex interplay of diplomacy, power, and the responsibility of global leaders to respond to international conflicts. As we analyze the motivations and strategies of both leaders, it is crucial to recognize that this summit is not just a political event; it is also a moment steeped in a long history of tensions stemming from the Cold War, the expansion of NATO, and the struggles for sovereignty in Eastern Europe.

Historically, U.S.-Russia relations have been fraught with mistrust and antagonism, reaching a nadir during the Cold War, when both nations were locked in a contest for global influence. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 was perceived as a victory for the West, yet it also left a power vacuum and a series of unresolved issues that have continued to plague international relations. The annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 and the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine are direct manifestations of these unresolved tensions. They highlight the fragility of state sovereignty and the complex dynamics of post-Soviet politics, as well as the dangers posed by great power rivalry in a multipolar world.

Trump’s approach to this summit—characterized by a willingness to engage with Putin and a focus on establishing a dialogue—can be viewed through several lenses. On one hand, the prospect of diplomatic engagement is a necessary step toward resolving the conflict in Ukraine, and it could pave the way for a more stable geopolitical landscape. However, the unpredictability of Trump's diplomacy raises concerns about the potential outcomes of such a meeting. His tendency to prioritize personal rapport over established diplomatic protocols can result in miscalculations that may exacerbate existing conflicts rather than resolve them. This unpredictability is mirrored in his remarks about the summit as a "listening session," which, while suggesting an openness to dialogue, can also be perceived as a lack of a cohesive strategy.

Moreover, the nuances of this summit extend beyond the immediate political stakes. The ongoing war in Ukraine has not only resulted in a humanitarian crisis but also serves as a flashpoint for broader discussions about self-determination, national security, and the rights of marginalized communities. The Ukrainian people's struggle against external aggression is emblematic of the fight against imperialism and the quest for autonomy that resonates throughout history. As tensions mount, it is essential for leaders to prioritize the voices of those affected by the conflict, rather than merely using their struggles as bargaining chips in a high-stakes game of diplomacy.

The anticipation of subsequent meetings, as mentioned by Trump, underscores the importance of sustained engagement and the potential for a diplomatic resolution. However, this anticipation must be tempered by a critical understanding of the historical and social contexts within which these discussions occur. Engaging with Russia requires not only a strategic approach but also an acknowledgment of the impact of military interventions, economic sanctions, and the complexities of international alliances. Only through an honest reckoning with the past can there be hope for a future that prioritizes peaceful coexistence over military confrontation.

In conclusion, the upcoming summit between Trump and Putin is a critical juncture in international relations, with implications that extend far beyond the immediate outcomes of their discussions. It serves as a reminder of the historical continuities that shape contemporary geopolitical realities, urging us to reflect on the lessons of the past as we navigate the challenges of the present. As advocates for social justice and peace, it is imperative to hold leaders accountable for their actions on the global stage and to ensure that the voices of those affected by these policies are heard and prioritized. As we engage with these discussions, we must advocate for a world that values diplomacy, human rights, and the dignity of all people, particularly those caught in the crossfire of great power politics.

Action:

The anticipated summit between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin is emblematic of the complex and often contentious relationship between the United States and Russia, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. As we analyze the strategies employed by both leaders leading up to this significant meeting in Alaska, it becomes vital to consider the historical and political implications surrounding their interactions. This summit is not merely a diplomatic rendezvous; it is a crucial juncture that could either exacerbate existing tensions or pave the way for a constructive dialogue on pressing global issues.

Historically, U.S.-Russia relations have oscillated between cooperation and confrontation, heavily influenced by the Cold War legacy and subsequent geopolitical developments. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing war in Ukraine have served as flashpoints in this relationship, showcasing stark differences in national interests and approaches to international law. Trump’s approach, which aims to engage directly with Putin and explore avenues for peace, is juxtaposed against the backdrop of a U.S. foreign policy that has often favored a more confrontational stance. This meeting presents an opportunity for Trump to redefine the narrative, but it also carries significant risks, particularly if it is perceived as capitulating to Russian aggression or undermining the sovereignty of Ukraine.

The stakes are high, and as citizens of a nation that prides itself on democratic values and international leadership, we must critically assess what this summit means for our global standing and for the peace and stability of Eastern Europe. One potential pathway is to advocate for a foreign policy that prioritizes diplomacy over confrontation. This involves not only supporting initiatives that promote dialogue and mutual understanding between the U.S. and Russia but also holding our leaders accountable for their actions on the international stage. Engagement with citizens, grassroots organizing, and raising awareness about the implications of U.S.-Russia diplomacy can create a more informed public, capable of influencing policymakers.

Moreover, it is essential to recognize the role of civil society and international coalitions in promoting peace. As Americans, we can support organizations that work towards conflict resolution and advocacy for human rights in Ukraine and beyond. Engaging with these organizations provides an avenue to amplify the voices of those most affected by this geopolitical struggle. This is not merely about U.S. interests; it is about the lives of individuals and communities that have been devastated by war and political strife. By prioritizing humanitarian efforts and supporting diplomatic initiatives, we contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the conflict and foster a culture of peace.

Lastly, it is crucial to stay informed and engaged with the ongoing developments that arise from the summit and beyond. Following the outcomes of the meeting, we should critically assess the implications for U.S.-Russian relations and the broader international community. This requires not only monitoring the statements made by our leaders but also understanding the perspectives of those in affected regions, such as Ukraine. By engaging in discussions, attending forums, and utilizing social media to spread awareness, we can ensure that the voices advocating for peace and diplomacy are heard loud and clear. The summit is a pivotal moment, but it is just one part of a larger narrative that demands our attention and action.

In conclusion, the summit between Trump and Putin is a critical moment that presents both risks and opportunities. By understanding the historical context, advocating for diplomatic engagement, supporting civil society efforts, and staying informed, we can actively participate in shaping a future that prioritizes peace and cooperation over division and conflict. It is up to us, as engaged citizens, to ensure that our leaders are held accountable for their actions and that the pursuit of a sustainable and just resolution to global conflicts is at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy.

To Do:

In light of the recent summit between Trump and Putin, it's essential to consider how we can engage constructively and advocate for a more peaceful and diplomatic approach to international relations. Here’s a detailed list of actions we can take:

### 1. **Engage with Local Representatives** - **Action**: Contact your Senators and Representatives to express your views on the importance of diplomatic engagement over military solutions. - **Example**: - **Senator Elizabeth Warren**: - Email: https://www.warren.senate.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 2400 JFK Federal Building, 15 New Sudbury Street, Boston, MA 02203 - **Senator Bernie Sanders**: - Email: https://www.sanders.senate.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 1025 Old Endo Road, Suite 300, Burlington, VT 05403

**What to say**: Express your support for diplomatic negotiations in resolving the Ukraine conflict. Emphasize the need for transparency and accountability in any agreements made during such summits.

### 2. **Support Peace Advocacy Organizations** - **Action**: Donate to or volunteer with organizations focused on peacebuilding and conflict resolution. - **Examples**: - **Peace Action**: An organization advocating for disarmament and diplomacy. - Website: www.peaceaction.org - **Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)**: Focuses on promoting peace and equality. - Website: www.wilpf.org

### 3. **Sign Petitions for Peace** - **Action**: Sign and share petitions that call for diplomatic solutions to conflicts. - **Example**: - **Change.org petition**: “Demand an End to Military Aid in Ukraine” - Link: www.change.org/petitions/end-military-aid-ukraine - **MoveOn.org petition**: “Support Diplomacy, Not War” - Link: www.moveon.org/petitions/support-diplomacy

### 4. **Organize or Join Local Peace Gatherings** - **Action**: Participate in or organize events that promote dialogue around peace and diplomacy. - **Example**: Host a local town hall discussion focusing on the importance of diplomacy in international relations, inviting local experts or community leaders to speak.

### 5. **Leverage Social Media for Advocacy** - **Action**: Use platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to raise awareness about the importance of diplomatic engagement. - **Example**: Create a campaign with a hashtag like #PeaceNotWar and encourage others to share their thoughts on the need for peaceful resolutions to conflicts.

### 6. **Educate Yourself and Others** - **Action**: Learn more about international relations and the impacts of military interventions versus diplomatic negotiations. - **Resources**: Read books like "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" by John Mearsheimer or "The Limits of Power" by Andrew Bacevich. Share insights with friends, colleagues, or book clubs.

### 7. **Write Opinion Pieces or Letters to the Editor** - **Action**: Share your perspective on the importance of diplomacy in local newspapers. - **Example**: Write a letter to your local paper emphasizing the need for peaceful conflict resolution and the role of the U.S. in fostering diplomatic relations.

### 8. **Participate in Advocacy Days or Lobbying Efforts** - **Action**: Join organized advocacy days where constituents meet with lawmakers to discuss diplomatic issues. - **Example**: Events organized by organizations like **The Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL)** which focuses on peace and social justice. - Website: www.fcnl.org

### 9. **Contact the White House** - **Action**: Voice your opinion directly to the White House regarding the importance of a peaceful approach to foreign policy. - **Contact Information**: - Email: www.whitehouse.gov/contact - Mailing Address: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20500

**What to say**: Urge the administration to prioritize diplomacy and engage constructively with international leaders to resolve conflicts, such as the situation in Ukraine.

By taking these actions, we can contribute to a broader movement advocating for diplomacy, peace, and the prioritization of human rights in international relations. Each of us has a role to play in shaping the future of our global community.


Sign Our Petition



10 Related Article(s):

Eric Ham: The Alaska summit is Trump's 'wobbly' moment

Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin Meeting Today: What's On Agenda? All You Need To Know

Hidden reason Putin will walk with one arm by the side when meeting Trump released

Trump Heads to Alaska for Pivotal Summit With Putin on Ukraine War - Conservative Angle

Alaska summit: Ukraine wary as Trump, Putin meet without Zelenskyy

Transcript: Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan"

How Trump's desire for a Nobel Peace Prize looms over Putin summit

Trump says he will raise territorial issues with Russia, but Ukraine will have final say

SUMMARY - Friday, 15 August 2025 - 5 p.m.

'Getting peace fast': What to expect from Trump's meeting with Putin * WorldNetDaily * by Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell, The Daily Signal


Updated very often
All Opinions and Actions are (C)opyright 2025 - TruthAndResistance.com