Truth and Resistance Dove Logo
Know what you should know!

Home     Categories     Search     Subscribe

Takeaways from the Trump-Putin meeting: No agreement, no questions but lots of pomp

seattletimes.com -- Friday, August 15, 2025, 10:57:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–Russia Relations, Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S. Elections & Voting Rights
Takeaways from the Trump-Putin meeting: No agreement, no questions but lots of pomp

WASHINGTON -- The much-anticipated summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin began with a warm welcome and a flyover by screaming jets at a U.S. military base in Alaska but ended with a thud Friday after they conceded that they had failed to reach any agreements on how to end the Russia-Ukraine war.

After about 2 1/2 hours of talks at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, the two men appeared before reporters for what had been billed as a joint news conference -- but they took no questions.

"We had an extremely productive meeting and many points were agreed to, there are just a very few that are left," Trump said. "We didn't get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there."

Putin, welcomed into the U.S. after being shunned by Western allies since early 2022 for ordering the invasion of Ukraine, thanked Trump for hosting the meeting and suggested with a chuckle that the next time the two sit down it could be in Moscow.

Here are key takeaways from the summit:

A warm welcome underscoring the friendly Trump-Putin relationship

Putin got a red-carpet welcome and even rode in Trump's presidential limousine from the tarmac to the summit venue. There, the pair were joined by two of their top aides: Secretary of State and national security adviser Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff for Trump and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and national security adviser Yuri Ushakov for Putin.

Putin, who spoke first after the meeting concluded, lauded the historical relationship between the United States, Russia and the former Soviet Union, recalling joint missions conducted by the two countries during World War II.

He said the U.S. and Russia share values, a standard talking point for Russian officials when trying to woo Trump and his aides. Putin also noted that Trump has frequently said the Ukraine war wouldn't have happened had he won the 2020 election.

"I think that would have been the case," the Russian leader said, a comment sure to please Trump.

However, there is no indication and no way to prove that Moscow would have acted differently toward Ukraine had Democrat Joe Biden not been elected.

Trump touts progress but concedes there was no deal

Trump had gone into the meeting hoping to get Putin to agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine -- or at least a commitment from Russia to enter into negotiations to reach one.

Instead, Trump conceded that "we haven't quite got there" and said he would be conferring with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and NATO leaders about next steps.

Trump said he and Putin had made some significant progress toward the goal of ending the conflict but gave no details on what that entailed and had to acknowledge that they had been unable to bridge substantial gaps.

"I believe we had a very productive meeting," Trump said. "We haven't quite got there, but we've made some headway. So, there's no deal until there's a deal."

In a subsequent conversation with Sean Hannity of Fox News Channel, Trump again offered no details on his discussions with Putin.

With diplomatic progress creeping along, time is on Putin's side

Amid drawn-out diplomatic moves to end the war, time is appears to be on Putin's side. That gives a leg up to Russian forces, who have used their larger numbers to slowly grind down defenses in eastern Ukraine 3 1/2 years into the conflict.

Putin got a pleasant reception from the leader of the free world on U.S. soil and walked away hours later without either providing details on what they discussed, whether a ceasefire was any closer to reality or what the next steps would be.

Putin praised Trump for the "friendly" tone of the talks -- Trump said nothing publicly about the killing of Ukrainian civilians in Moscow's attacks -- and for "understanding that Russia has its own national interests."

Putin said Moscow and Washington should "turn the page," with relations having sunk to the lowest point since the Cold War.

Putin appearing in the U.S. for the first time in 10 years was celebrated as a sign that Moscow was no longer a pariah on the global stage. In a social media post, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told followers that the Western press would be on the verge of "losing their minds."

"For three years, they talked about Russia's isolation, and today they saw the red carpet being rolled out to greet the Russian president in the United States," she said.

There were no details and no questions

Both men said the talks were "productive" but the lack of any announcement of solid achievements was revealing.

The news conference ended up being less than 15 minutes of rather standard diplomatic comments -- and gave no indication that any concrete results were achieved -- and offered little departure from their previous comments on the war in Ukraine.

Trump has made it a feature of his second term to parry questions from reporters in front of world leaders, but in the clearest sign of his disappointment, the president abruptly cut short his plans to take questions.

Trump had gone into the summit saying here was a 25% chance that the summit would fail and that it was meant to be a "feel-out meeting," but he had also floated the idea of bringing Zelenskyy to Alaska for a subsequent, three-way meeting if things went well. It's unclear what comes next.

___

Associated Press writers Katie Marie Davies, Dasha Litvinova and Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.

Expand

Sign Our Petition


Opinion:

The recent summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska has drawn scrutiny for its lack of tangible outcomes, despite the grandiose expectations leading up to the meeting. The meeting, characterized by ceremonial displays and a warm reception for the Russian leader, has raised significant questions about the nature of U.S.-Russia relations and the broader implications for global diplomacy, particularly in the context of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. It is essential to consider this summit not only as a high-profile diplomatic event but as a reflection of the historical dynamics between these two nations and the impact of such relationships on international stability.

The backdrop of this meeting is pivotal to understanding its significance. The U.S. has historically vacillated between cooperation and confrontation with Russia, a dynamic that has roots in World War II alliances and the subsequent Cold War rivalry. While President Putin sought to leverage historical ties by invoking joint missions during the war, it is crucial to recognize that the post-war era has been marked by deep-seated mistrust and geopolitical maneuvering. The Ukraine conflict, which escalated dramatically after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, has further strained relations. Trump's assertion that the war might not have occurred had he won the 2020 election suggests a desire to position himself as a peacemaker, though it also reveals a troubling tendency to downplay the complexities of international relations. The assertion lacks empirical support and risks oversimplifying the myriad factors that contribute to such conflicts.

While Trump characterized the meeting as “productive,” it is sobering to note that no agreements were reached to address the ongoing violence in Ukraine. This failure underscores a broader trend in international diplomacy where symbolic gestures often overshadow substantive dialogue and action. The lack of a joint news conference, where questions could have been raised about the details of their discussions, only amplifies the perception of a lack of transparency and accountability in U.S. foreign policy. This situation mirrors historical instances where grand summits failed to translate into meaningful resolutions, effectively sidelining the voices of those most affected by such conflicts, particularly the Ukrainian people.

This summit also raises important questions about the role of leadership in times of crisis. The juxtaposition of Trump and Putin’s apparent camaraderie against the backdrop of a humanitarian crisis in Ukraine is jarring. The ongoing violence has led to significant loss of life and displacement, consequences that must not be overlooked in favor of political theatrics. It is essential to advocate for a foreign policy that prioritizes human rights and the well-being of affected populations, rather than allowing geopolitical gamesmanship to dictate the terms of engagement. The historical context of U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts highlights the need for a more principled stance that emphasizes solidarity with those fighting for their sovereignty and rights.

Furthermore, the implications of this summit extend beyond U.S.-Russia relations; they resonate within the broader context of global politics. The welcoming of Putin, previously ostracized by Western allies, signals a potential shift in diplomatic norms that could embolden authoritarian regimes worldwide. This situation necessitates a critical examination of how international diplomacy can inadvertently legitimize oppressive actions. For those engaged in social justice movements, it is vital to connect these events to the ongoing struggles against militarism and for self-determination. The pursuit of peace must be rooted in a commitment to justice, accountability, and the protection of human rights, rather than mere political expediency.

In conclusion, the Trump-Putin summit serves as a reminder of the complexities inherent in international relations and the need for a thoughtful, principled approach to diplomacy. By examining the historical context and current implications of such meetings, we can gain insights into the challenges of navigating global conflicts. It is incumbent upon those who advocate for social justice to engage in these conversations, emphasizing the necessity of prioritizing human rights and accountability over political maneuvering. As we continue to witness the consequences of international diplomacy, we must remain vigilant in our commitments to justice, equity, and genuine peace.

Action:

The meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, held at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska, serves as a critical lens through which to examine contemporary geopolitical dynamics, particularly the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. From its outset, this summit was characterized by a stark contrast between the pomp and ceremony surrounding it and the substantive outcomes—or lack thereof—achieved within its confines. The absence of questions from the press and the vague declarations of progress by both leaders underscore a troubling trend in diplomatic engagements where style often eclipses substance. This meeting not only reflects the complexities of U.S.-Russia relations but also highlights the imperative for a more engaged and informed citizenry in the United States.

Historically, the relationship between the U.S. and Russia has oscillated between cooperation and confrontation, shaped by events such as World War II, the Cold War, and the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union. During the summit, Putin invoked the historical cooperation between the two nations, perhaps as a strategic maneuver to appeal to Trump's admiration for a more personal, less diplomatic approach to foreign relations. This appeal to shared history, while superficially engaging, overlooks the reality of the current geopolitical landscape, where the U.S. stands against Russia's aggressive actions in Ukraine. The continued insistence from both leaders that significant progress was made, despite the lack of concrete agreements, reveals a fundamental disconnect from the realities faced by the Ukrainian people and the broader international community.

As Americans, we must respond to this diplomatic failure with an understanding of the broader implications of such meetings. While Trump’s administration often framed its relationship with Russia through a lens of personal rapport, the underlying truths of authoritarianism and human rights abuses cannot be ignored. Engaging in thoughtful discussions about the nature of these relationships is essential. When conversing with those who hold differing views, we can emphasize the importance of holding our leaders accountable for foreign policy decisions that affect millions of lives. This includes advocating for a foreign policy that prioritizes humanitarian concerns and international law, rather than one that is dictated by personal relationships between leaders.

Moreover, we must recognize the role of grassroots movements and public pressure in shaping foreign policy. The lack of a concrete agreement on a ceasefire during this summit should galvanize activists and citizens alike to advocate for increased support for Ukraine and to demand that our government take a firm stance against Russian aggression. This can take the form of lobbying for more comprehensive sanctions against Russia, as well as advocating for military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Educational initiatives that inform the public about the stakes involved in this conflict can also play a crucial role in fostering a more informed electorate, one that can challenge the narratives propagated by those who seek to diminish the urgency of the situation.

Finally, it is crucial to understand that the rhetoric surrounding these meetings often serves to distract from the very real consequences of foreign policy decisions. While Trump’s claims of a 'productive meeting' might resonate with his supporters, we must combat such narratives with a focus on the lived experiences of those affected by the conflict. By sharing stories of Ukrainian citizens and emphasizing the moral imperative to protect human rights, we can provide a compelling counter-narrative that challenges complacency among right-wing circles. This is not just a matter of political debate but a question of ethical responsibility and global solidarity.

In conclusion, the Trump-Putin meeting is emblematic of a broader trend in U.S. foreign policy that prioritizes personal diplomacy over genuine accountability and ethical considerations. The failure to reach a meaningful agreement on the Ukraine conflict should be a rallying point for all Americans who value democracy, human rights, and international law. By fostering informed discourse, engaging in grassroots activism, and emphasizing the moral imperative of our foreign policy, we can work towards a more just and responsible approach to international relations, one that prioritizes the well-being of people over political posturing.

To Do:

To address the issues raised in the article regarding the Trump-Putin meeting and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, it is essential to take personal and collective actions that can influence our political landscape and promote peace. Here is a detailed list of ideas and actions we can take:

### Personal Actions to Promote Peace and Accountability

1. **Educate Yourself and Others:** - Stay informed about the Ukraine conflict and international relations. Share credible resources with friends and family, such as articles from reputable news organizations or reports from human rights organizations. - Organize or participate in community discussions or workshops that focus on the implications of such summits and the importance of diplomatic resolutions.

2. **Support Humanitarian Efforts:** - Contribute to organizations that provide aid to those affected by the Ukraine conflict. Some reputable organizations include: - **Doctors Without Borders**: [Doctors Without Borders](https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org) - **International Rescue Committee**: [IRC](https://www.rescue.org)

3. **Engage in Activism:** - Join or support local and national organizations advocating for peace and human rights. Groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch often have campaigns focused on international conflicts. - Participate in peace marches or rallies advocating for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict.

### Specific Actions to Influence Policy

1. **Petition for Peaceful Resolution:** - Start or sign petitions that demand the U.S. government take a stronger stance in advocating for a ceasefire and diplomatic talks. Websites like Change.org often host petitions on relevant issues. - Example Petition: Search for existing petitions related to the Ukraine conflict on Change.org and share them within your network.

2. **Contact Your Elected Officials:** - Write to your congressional representatives expressing your concerns about the U.S. government's approach to the Russia-Ukraine situation. A sample letter could include: - Your name and address (to identify you as a constituent) - A clear statement of your position: “I urge you to advocate for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Ukraine that prioritizes diplomacy over military engagement.” - Ask for specific actions: “Please support legislation that promotes diplomatic negotiations and humanitarian assistance for those affected by the conflict.” - Find your representatives’ contact information: - **House of Representatives**: [www.house.gov](https://www.house.gov) - **Senate**: [www.senate.gov](https://www.senate.gov)

3. **Engage with Local Media:** - Write letters to the editor of your local newspaper, expressing your views on the importance of diplomatic engagement in international conflicts. - Use social media platforms to raise awareness about the Ukraine situation, share facts, and encourage others to take action.

4. **Support Advocacy Groups:** - Donate to or volunteer with advocacy groups focused on foreign policy, such as: - **The Ploughshares Fund**: Focuses on reducing nuclear weapons and promoting peace. [Ploughshares Fund](https://www.ploughshares.org) - **Peace Action**: Works on grassroots campaigns for peace and disarmament. [Peace Action](https://www.peaceaction.org)

5. **Promote Diplomatic Engagement:** - Advocate for the U.S. to engage with international bodies like the United Nations to mediate and propose peaceful solutions to conflicts. - Write to your local representatives emphasizing the importance of multilateral approaches to international peace.

### Conclusion

By taking these actions, we can collectively push for a more peaceful and just resolution to conflicts like the one in Ukraine. It is essential to remain engaged, informed, and proactive in advocating for diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and accountability in our political system. Each of us can play a role in shaping the future through our actions and voices.


Sign Our Petition



10 Related Article(s):

Trump vows not to be intimidated ahead of Putin summit | News

'High-stakes' Putin summit could fail, says Trump

Prospects for Trump & Putin in Alaska

Trump to meet Putin in high-stakes Alaska summit

5 Things To Know Ahead Of The Trump-Putin Summit

Trump, Putin soon to sit down for high-stakes Ukraine talks in Alaska

Who's With Trump in Alaska

Trump and Putin shake hands in Alaska for high-stakes summit

Trump Rolls Out the Red Carpet for Putin in Alaska

Trump and Putin locked in face to face talks after US leader's show of force


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