8 reasons why Alaska summit was 'advantage Putin'
financialexpress.com -- Saturday, August 16, 2025, 2:29:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, Media Coverage & Press Relations
Donald Trump may have played it safe by meeting Vladimir Putin on US soil, but the Russian president still left the scene with an advantageous victory on his side. Here's how.
US President Donald Trump may seemed to have played it safe by welcoming Vladimir Putin for ceasefire negotiations on his home soil this Friday, but global critics were convinced beforehand that the Russian president had an "advantage" over him anyway.
The 79-year-old MAGA leader has long been pitching himself as the "peacemaker" in global wars, taking credit for brokering ceasefires in one too many conflicts across borders. In the lead-up to his summit with Putin in Alaska, Trump told reporters at the White House that he once deemed the Russia-Ukraine crisis to be the "easiest" one to solve. However, it turned out to be the "most difficult" of all. Through the Friday meet, he hoped to settle the score with Putin for once and for all in hopes of drawing out a peace deal amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Despite the sit-down being an undeniably high-stakes one, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was kept out of the conversations so that Trump could put his self-proclaimed "peacemaking" chops on display in his one-on-one interactions with Putin. Once the pair emerged from behind closed doors, the inconclusive meeting merely churned out a "no deal" declaration, while Ukrainian officials weighed their options in the face of a lack of ceasefire announcement.
Even though Zelenskyy was not present during this particular meeting, which inevitably put the ball in Putin's court, Trump initially said that he would be briefing him and European allies about what went down at the summit. In the aftermath of his talks with Putin, he outrightly put the onus of a ceasefire on the Ukrainian president as he failed to get the coveted verdict from the Russian leader.
Here's how the Alaska summit worked out as an advantage for Putin after all:
Putin's red carpet advantage in Alaska while Zelenskyy not invited
Even though Zelenskyy was missing out in action on Friday, he sent out a warning beforehand, saying that Putin would do his best to "deceive America," in light of the Alaska summit. US news coverage was quick to break down the bare minimum that the public did actually see first-hand.
CNN's Fareed Zakaria slammed the whole event as "cringeworthy," noting that Putin earned "red carpet treatment" to Alaska, something that even US Democrats have missed out under the Trump administration.
Moreover, the Russian president, who is billed as an alleged war criminal, even got a ride in the presidential state car dubbed "The Beast." Trump's outright warm welcome to Putin, despite his recent secondary tariff threats against countries, (especially India) purchasing Russian oil, was already a far-fetched sight that may have troubled Ukrainian from the get go.
"You can tell that Trump thinks Putin is an equal, is this big shot on the world stage and he's been treated by the rest of the West as a kind of pariah. He can't go to Europe because he'd be arrested," said Zakaria. "There was a lot of the atmospherics that were cringeworthy."
MAGA leader is known to have a thing for Trump supporters
Donald Trump is infamously known to fall soft on those who seek to woo him with flattery. Putin, despite the crisis raging in Ukraine, ostentatiously emerged as an out and out Trump supporter in Alaska. Not only did he backs the US leader's 2020 election fraud claims, he also suggested that had Trump been back then, the Ukraine-Russia crisis would've never sprouted.
"Today President Trump was saying that if he was president back then, there would be no war, and I'm quite sure that it would indeed be so," Putin said. "I can confirm that." Trump further affirmed that the Russian leader conveyed his support to him over these conspiracy theories, saying, "He said 'your election was rigged because you have mail-in voting.'"
Trump seems to have already been won over as he later told Fox News' Sean Hannity in a post-summit interview that he thinks Putin wants to "solve the problem," even though the Russian president was the one to start it.
Putin gains time, wins rhetoric clash, positions as an 'equal to Trump'
While it was already understood that Putin wouldn't budge from his standpoint, fortunately Trump didn't end up giving away formal control to him either. He, however, also didn't enforce any sanctions on Putin, allowing him to take the high road anyway.
Noting the inconclusive results of the meet, Oleksandr Merezhko, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the Ukrainian Parliament, said Putin "won the information war." He also noted that the Russian president seemed like an "equal to President Trump," and he basically "used Trump to show that he is not isolated."
Similarly, Ukrainian politician Oleksandr Merezhko noted that the summit brought about no changes. Struggling to come to terms with the no peace deal situation, he said, "I think it's a failure because Putin was again talking about security concerns and used his usual rhetoric."
More importantly, the summit granted Putin more time. "It seems that Putin has gained more time. No ceasefire or de-escalation has been agreed upon," Ukrainian Member of Parliament Oleksiy Goncharenko said on Telegram.
Putin escapes sanctions or ceasefire
Donald Trump's ex-national security advisor John Bolton asserted that while Trump may not have lost, Putin definitely won the day. "Trump didn't come away with anything, except more meetings," he said after the summit, adding Putin, on the other hand, "has gone a long way to reestablishing the relationship, which I always believed was his key goal."
Bolton further noted that Putin had escaped sanctions and was not facing a ceasefire. "The next meeting is not set. Zelensky was not told any of this before this press conference. It's far from over, but I'd say Putin achieved most of what he wanted. Trump achieved very little," he added.
Putin 'steamrolled' Trump and left: Fox News
Right the summit concluded on a highly inconclusive note, Fox News Senior White House Correspondent Jacqui Heinrich was quick to give her verdict on the Trump-Putin meeting. Even without actually having much insight into went down between the leaders at the time, she highlighted that the whole thing seemed more "unusual" than ever.
Heinrich divulged that they were originally told that both presidents would be open to answering questions after a joint press conference in "the event the meeting well enough that they could set the stage for a second meeting." On the other hand, if things went sideways, it was stated that Trump would call off the presser and entertain the "media solo and send pewople home."
However, something else happened entirely. Traditional protocol dictates that the host country's president speaks first and addresses reporters. The Alaska summit flipped the usual course of events on its head, as Putin "left the media scrambling to get their headsets in" as he was the first one come out and talk to them.
As part of review, Heinrich ultimately highlighted it "seemed like Putin came in and steamrolled, got right into what he wanted to say." He simply got his photo next to Trump and moved on, while the US leader "who is the host and who is, the president, would not want to, I think, enable something that would make him look weak."
Sign Our PetitionThe recent Alaska summit between former President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin underscores the complex geopolitical landscape that has emerged in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Though Trump attempted to position himself as a peacemaker, the dynamics of the meeting ultimately favored Putin, revealing the profound implications for Ukraine, international diplomacy, and the ongoing struggle for self-determination in conflict zones. This summit serves as a stark reminder of how power imbalances can shape diplomatic outcomes and highlights the historical context of U.S.-Russia relations.
Historically, the United States has portrayed itself as a champion of democracy and human rights, particularly in the face of authoritarian regimes. The Russia-Ukraine conflict, which escalated dramatically with the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and further intensified with the current invasion, challenges this narrative. Trump's decision to host Putin in Alaska without the presence of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy raises questions about the U.S. commitment to supporting its allies. It reflects a broader trend in American foreign policy, particularly under Trump, of prioritizing personal diplomacy over established alliances and multilateral frameworks that have traditionally guided international relations. The exclusion of Zelenskyy from discussions not only undermined Ukraine’s sovereignty but also signaled a troubling willingness to engage with authoritarian leaders on unequal terms.
The optics of the summit are equally troubling. The red-carpet treatment afforded to Putin serves to legitimize his regime and embolden him on the world stage. It is a stark contrast to the treatment of many democratic leaders who have faced significant challenges in upholding human rights and justice. The summit’s lack of a substantive outcome, particularly in terms of a ceasefire or meaningful dialogue regarding Ukraine, further emphasizes the ineffectiveness of such personal meetings when they are devoid of accountability and clear commitments. It is essential to recognize that appearances matter in international relations; they can either reinforce democratic values or perpetuate the status quo of oppression.
Critically, the summit highlights the broader social struggles at play in Ukraine, where the conflict has resulted in significant human suffering, displacement, and loss of life. The Ukrainian people have been fighting not only for their territorial integrity but for the very principles of democracy, sovereignty, and self-determination. The absence of a constructive dialogue on the conflict at the Alaska summit signals a disregard for these fundamental values. As citizens of the world, it is imperative to amplify the voices of those affected by the war and to hold leaders accountable for their diplomatic choices, which have real-world consequences for millions.
In conclusion, the Alaska summit serves as a poignant reminder of the fraught nature of contemporary diplomacy, where personal relationships can overshadow the pressing needs of nations and communities. The failure to achieve a ceasefire or engage Ukraine meaningfully in discussions exemplifies the ongoing struggle against authoritarianism and highlights the necessity of a principled foreign policy that prioritizes human rights and international law. Moving forward, it is crucial to advocate for a foreign policy that not only recognizes the complexities of global power dynamics but also centers the voices and rights of marginalized communities, particularly in conflict zones like Ukraine. Only through such an approach can we hope to foster a more just and equitable world order.
The recent summit held in Alaska between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin serves as a poignant reminder of the complexities of international diplomacy and the often disconcerting dynamics that characterize U.S.-Russia relations. While Trump may have entered the meeting with the intent of showcasing his negotiating prowess, the outcome was far from the anticipated triumph. Instead, the summit underscored a critical imbalance that continues to leave vulnerable nations, particularly Ukraine, at the mercy of aggressive foreign powers. This meeting revealed not only the flaws in Trump’s approach to foreign policy but also the broader implications of such encounters on geopolitical stability, especially in light of the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Historically, the United States has positioned itself as a defender of democracy and territorial integrity, especially in the post-World War II era. The Cold War solidified a long-standing rivalry with the Soviet Union, which later morphed into the Russian Federation. The U.S. has consistently sought to counter Russian advances, whether in Eastern Europe or other parts of the world. However, the Alaska summit, wherein Trump excluded Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy from discussions, starkly highlights a departure from support for allied nations. This unbalanced approach not only undermines Ukraine's sovereignty but also sends a troubling message to other nations facing threats from authoritarian regimes. That the U.S. would grant such respect and visibility to Putin, while sidelining Ukraine, indicates a troubling normalization of aggression.
As citizens and advocates for a more equitable and just world, we must critically engage with the fallout from such diplomatic gatherings. It is essential to amplify the voices of Ukrainian leaders and their allies, ensuring that their concerns are not merely an afterthought in discussions that affect their future. Grassroots organizations and advocacy groups can play a pivotal role in this regard, mobilizing support for Ukraine both politically and economically. Engaging in campaigns that promote awareness of the situation in Ukraine, facilitating discussions about U.S. foreign policy implications, and calling on elected officials to take a firmer stance against Russian aggression can help shift the narrative. Furthermore, encouraging dialogue about the historical context of U.S.-Russia relations can demystify the complexities of international diplomacy for everyday Americans.
Moreover, it is vital to challenge the narrative that positions leaders like Putin as equals on the world stage. The media, public figures, and policymakers must not allow the portrayal of such summits to become a sanitized spectacle that overlooks the severe consequences of appeasement. Critiquing Trump's approach to Putin, particularly the optics of granting the Russian leader special treatment, is essential in reframing how we view global leadership. By drawing attention to the risks of legitimizing authoritarian leaders, we can advocate for a foreign policy that prioritizes human rights, democratic values, and international cooperation.
In conclusion, the Alaska summit exemplifies the need for a more nuanced understanding of U.S. foreign policy and its implications for global dynamics. By actively engaging in discussions about the outcomes of such meetings and advocating for a supportive stance toward nations like Ukraine, we can foster a diplomatic environment that champions peace and stability rather than one that unwittingly emboldens aggressors. As we move forward, it is incumbent upon us as informed citizens to hold our leaders accountable and insist on a foreign policy that reflects our shared values of democracy, justice, and respect for sovereignty.
In light of the recent article discussing the Alaska summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, it is essential to consider actionable steps that individuals can take to advocate for a more thoughtful and responsible approach to international diplomacy and support for Ukraine. Below is a detailed list of ideas and actions that can be implemented on a personal level:
### What Can We Personally Do About This?
1. **Raise Awareness**: Share information about the implications of the summit on social media and in community discussions to help others understand the importance of including the voices of those directly affected by such diplomatic negotiations.
2. **Engage with Local Representatives**: Contact local elected officials to express concerns about how U.S. foreign policy impacts allies like Ukraine and to advocate for more inclusive diplomatic practices.
3. **Support Humanitarian Efforts**: Contribute to organizations that provide support to Ukrainians affected by the ongoing conflict, ensuring that aid reaches those in need.
4. **Educate Ourselves and Others**: Organize or participate in educational forums or discussions about the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the implications of international diplomacy.
### Exact Actions We Can Take
1. **Sign Petitions**: - **Petition for Increased Support to Ukraine**: Search for petitions on platforms like Change.org or MoveOn.org that call for increased military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. An example is the "Support Ukraine" petition which can be found by searching these platforms. 2. **Contact Elected Officials**: - **Write to Your Senators**: - Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY): - Email: schumer.senate.gov/contact - Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): - Email: durbin.senate.gov/contact - **Sample Message**: ``` Subject: Support for Ukraine
Dear Senator [Last Name],
I am writing to express my concern regarding the recent Alaska summit between President Trump and President Putin. It is crucial that the U.S. supports our allies, particularly Ukraine, in their fight against aggression. I urge you to advocate for increased military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine and to ensure that their leaders are included in any discussions that directly impact their sovereignty and security.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] ```
3. **Participate in Local Advocacy Groups**: Join or support groups focused on international diplomacy, human rights, and support for Ukraine. Organizations like the Ukrainian National Women's League of America or local chapters of Amnesty International often have campaigns you can get involved in.
4. **Attend Public Meetings**: Check for town hall meetings or forums where foreign policy is discussed and voice your concerns about the U.S.'s approach to Russia and support for Ukraine.
5. **Organize a Fundraiser**: Host an event to raise funds for organizations providing humanitarian aid to Ukraine. This could involve local businesses, community centers, or schools to maximize participation.
6. **Write to News Outlets**: Express your thoughts in letters to the editor of local papers or national outlets. Share your perspective on why inclusive diplomacy matters and the significance of supporting Ukraine.
7. **Engage in Digital Activism**: Use social media platforms to spread awareness and create a call to action around the summit's implications. Use hashtags related to Ukraine and foreign policy to reach a broader audience.
By taking these steps, you can contribute to a more informed and engaged public discourse around U.S. foreign policy and the situation in Ukraine, while also advocating for a more inclusive and supportive approach to international diplomacy.