Putin 'rewarded' for Ukraine invasion with Trump summit, experts warn
basingstokegazette.co.uk -- Saturday, August 16, 2025, 8:58:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–Russia Relations, Foreign Policy & International Relations, Republican Party Politics
The summit, which took place at a military base in Anchorage in the US's northernmost state, was aimed at kick-starting a peace process to end the war in Ukraine.
Very little appears to have been materially resolved as a result of the meeting.
Mr Trump has insisted "some great progress" was made, with "many points" agreed and "very few" remaining.
Sir Keir Starmer, meanwhile, commended the US president's efforts to make peace, and said Mr Trump had "brought us closer than ever before" to an end to the war in Ukraine.
Leading foreign affairs and military experts have however claimed the summit's main effect has been to lend legitimacy to Mr Putin, who has been considered a pariah by many world leaders since the invasion began in 2022.
Orysia Lutsevych, deputy director of the Russia and Eurasia programme and head of the Ukraine forum at the Chatham House think tank, said: "After six bilateral Trump-Putin phone calls, five trips of Trump's envoy (Steve) Witkoff to Moscow, the Alaska summit, watched globally with so much anticipation and anxiety, failed to produce any tangible outcome to stop Russian aggression against Ukraine.
"Russia has received a reward for its invasion.
"Trump called Russia a 'great country' and said there is strong mutual understanding between the two parties.
"This represents a further fissure in the already shaky Transatlantic alliance, the rupture of which is a primary Russian aim.
"The Alaska summit represents another step towards this goal."
Keir Giles, an associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia programme at Chatham House, meanwhile suggested there were "two dangers" which could emerge from the summit.
The first is that Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky may now be perceived by Mr Trump as a "softer target where he is more willing to exert leverage", and that the US president could "once again try to strongarm Zelensky into compromising the future of his country".
The second danger is that European leaders "might once again think the immediate danger has passed" and become complacent, after their scramble to speak to Mr Trump ahead of the summit.
Dr Neil Melvin, director of international security at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) meanwhile suggested Mr Putin would walk away considering the summit a success.
Dr Melvin said: "Vladimir Putin came to the Alaska summit with the principal goal of stalling any pressure on Russia to end the war.
"He will consider the summit outcome as mission accomplished."
He added: "Russia's war aims have not changed since it launched its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
"At the summit, Putin was clear that he wants to address first what he calls the root causes of the war.
"The Kremlin identifies these as Nato enlargement, the emergence of governments in Ukraine resistant to Russian integration projects, and challenges to Russian claims about territory and ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
"This is Russia's precondition and underpins Putin's demand for a 'comprehensive peace deal'.
"This agenda would lead to the subjugation of Ukraine.
"Putin made no concessions at the summit.
"Moreover, he succeeded in presenting himself as a legitimate equal to the US president.
"He will also consider it a victory that he was able to marginalise Zelensky and European leaders from the central discussion about the future of European security."
Elsewhere, party political leaders in the UK warned against lending Mr Putin legitimacy.
Sir Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader said: "It's clear Putin doesn't want peace.
"Trump's attempt to sweet talk him into a deal has failed, so it's time for Trump to finally get tough.
"The UK should seize Russian assets to help Ukraine today, and press the US to do the same."
Green Party MP Ellie Chowns meanwhile said the world was "left where we started" by the summit, adding: "A brutal war caused by Russia's aggression and no real solution in sight.
"Any lasting peace plan without Ukraine's full participation and consent will fail.
"When you compare how Trump rolled out the red carpet for Putin to his publicly humiliating Zelensky, it's clear that the only winner from these talks is Putin.
"He was handed the credibility of a seat at the top table while his forces continue their attacks on Ukraine."
Sign Our PetitionThe recent Alaska summit between former President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has drawn significant criticism from foreign affairs experts who argue that it fundamentally undermines international efforts to hold Russia accountable for its aggression in Ukraine. This event can be seen as a stark reminder of how power dynamics and international relations have shifted in recent years, particularly under the influence of populist leaders who prioritize personal diplomacy over established diplomatic norms. The idea that a meeting can bring about peace without substantial progress or concrete resolutions echoes a troubling trend wherein the legitimacy of authoritarian regimes is bolstered rather than challenged.
Historically, the response of the global community to acts of aggression has evolved through the lens of collective security and international law. In the wake of World War II, the formation of institutions such as the United Nations was meant to prevent the kind of unilateral invasions that characterized earlier conflicts. However, the Alaska summit seems to represent a significant deviation from this ethos. Instead of reaffirming a commitment to upholding international law and supporting democratic nations like Ukraine, the summit has been criticized for granting legitimacy to Putin's regime, which has consistently violated the sovereignty of its neighbors. This alarming trend reflects a broader context in which authoritarianism is increasingly normalized on the world stage.
The implications of this summit extend beyond just the geopolitical landscape; they touch on critical social struggles within and between nations. The concerns raised by experts regarding potential shifts in U.S. foreign policy towards Ukraine are particularly pertinent. The possibility that President Trump may exert undue pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to compromise on critical issues could lead to severe consequences for the Ukrainian people. Such actions could undermine the democratic aspirations of Ukraine, a nation that has fought valiantly against external aggression in recent years. The stakes are high; a perceived weakening of support from the U.S. could embolden Russia to further its territorial ambitions and destabilize the region.
Additionally, the summit highlights the ongoing struggle against complacency among European leaders when it comes to the threat posed by Russia. As Dr. Neil Melvin pointed out, the summit may lead European leaders to mistakenly believe that the immediate danger has passed. This complacency could have dire consequences, allowing Putin to solidify his gains in Ukraine and potentially expand his influence further into Europe. The transatlantic alliance, which has historically been a bulwark against authoritarianism, is at risk of fracture if leaders fail to recognize the long-term implications of their diplomatic engagements—or lack thereof— with authoritarian regimes.
As we reflect on the Alaska summit, it is crucial to understand the historical lessons that inform our current geopolitical reality. The failure to confront aggressors decisively has often led to spirals of conflict that could have been avoided through collective action. The normalization of dialogue with authoritarian figures, such as Putin, without holding them accountable for their actions sends a dangerous message that aggression may be met with negotiation rather than resistance. For those who advocate for social justice and democratic integrity, the challenge lies in reclaiming the narrative around international relations. By emphasizing the need for a united front against authoritarianism, we can remind the world that the principles of democracy and human rights must remain paramount, lest we repeat the mistakes of history.
The recent summit between former President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, held in Anchorage, Alaska, has sparked intense debate among political analysts regarding its implications for global diplomatic relations, particularly in the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine. The meeting, intended to initiate a peace process, appears to have devolved into what many experts consider a legitimization of Putin’s aggressive foreign policy. By offering recognition and dialogue to a leader who has invaded a sovereign nation, the summit not only undermines the principle of territorial integrity but also signals a dangerous shift in American diplomacy that could embolden authoritarian regimes worldwide.
Historically, the United States has prided itself on standing as a bastion of democracy and a defender of international law. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022 was met with widespread condemnation, with many world leaders viewing Putin as a pariah. This sentiment had led to a unified response among NATO allies and a global push for sanctions against Russia. However, the Anchorage summit represents a stark departure from those collective efforts. Experts like Orysia Lutsevych have noted that the summit failed to yield any substantial outcomes to halt Russian aggression, and instead, it offered a platform for Putin to bolster his international standing. The ramifications are significant: a perceived lack of accountability could embolden similar actions by other authoritarian regimes, undermining years of progress made in international relations.
Moreover, the summit has raised critical concerns about the future of Ukraine and the perception of its leadership. The potential for Trump to view Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a "softer target" where he could exert pressure is alarming. Historically, the U.S. has played a pivotal role in supporting Ukraine against Russian encroachment. The idea that American leadership could waver, especially in the face of such a blatant act of aggression, could destabilize the already precarious situation in the region. European leaders, too, risk complacency, believing that dialogue with Russia could be a pathway to peace. This notion is misguided; it ignores the historical pattern of Russian aggression being met with dialogue that ultimately results in further incursions rather than resolution.
As engaged citizens, Americans must consider what actions they can take in light of these developments. First, there is a critical need for advocacy—citizens should reach out to their representatives and express the importance of a robust, consistent stance against authoritarianism. This includes urging Congress to support military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, which has been a lifeline for the country amid ongoing conflict. Moreover, public pressure can play a crucial role in shaping policy. Initiatives that highlight the importance of international coalitions and adherence to international law should be championed to ensure that the U.S. does not retreat from its historical commitments to global democracy.
Additionally, education is vital. Engaging in dialogues within our communities about the complexities of international relations can foster a more informed electorate. Citizens can utilize social media platforms, local forums, and community organizations to disseminate information about the realities of the Russian invasion and the implications of American diplomatic strategies. By increasing awareness and understanding, we can build a more resilient civil society that demands accountability and ethical governance, both at home and abroad.
In conclusion, the Anchorage summit should serve as a clarion call for those who value democratic principles and international cooperation. The summit’s perceived legitimization of Putin’s actions poses a significant threat not just to Ukraine, but to the international order as a whole. It is imperative that we advocate for a foreign policy that prioritizes human rights and the sovereignty of nations. By holding our leaders accountable, educating ourselves and our communities, and fostering a spirit of activism, we can work towards a world where peace and justice prevail over aggression and tyranny.
The recent summit between former President Trump and President Putin raises significant concerns about the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy and the implications for global stability, particularly regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine. As engaged citizens, there are several effective actions we can take to advocate for a more principled approach to international relations and support peace efforts. Here’s a detailed list of personal actions and initiatives we can undertake.
### 1. Educate Yourself and Others - **Action:** Increase awareness in your community about the implications of legitimizing aggressive leaders like Putin. - **Example:** Host a community discussion or a virtual webinar focusing on U.S.-Russia relations and the importance of supporting Ukraine. - **Resources:** Utilize articles, reports, and expert analyses from credible organizations (e.g., Chatham House, Royal United Services Institute).
### 2. Advocate for Peaceful Resolutions - **Action:** Write to your elected representatives advocating for diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine without legitimizing aggressive actions. - **Who to Write to:** - Your local Congressional representatives. You can find their contact information here: [House of Representatives Directory](https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative). - For example, if you live in California, you can write to: - Rep. Nancy Pelosi Email: pelosi.house.gov/contact Mailing Address: 1236 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 ### 3. Sign and Share Petitions - **Action:** Support online petitions that call for increased sanctions on Russia and stronger support for Ukraine. - **Example:** - **Petition:** "Support Ukraine Through Sanctions on Russia" available on platforms like Change.org or MoveOn.org. - Share these petitions on social media to gather more support and raise awareness.
### 4. Support Organizations Working for Peace - **Action:** Donate to or volunteer with organizations focused on humanitarian aid and support for Ukraine. - **Examples:** - **United Help Ukraine**: Provides medical and humanitarian aid to those affected by the war. - Website: [United Help Ukraine](https://unitedhelpukraine.org) - **Doctors Without Borders**: Offers medical assistance in war zones, including Ukraine. - Website: [Doctors Without Borders](https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org)
### 5. Engage with Local Media - **Action:** Write letters to the editor of local newspapers expressing your views on the need for a principled U.S. foreign policy. - **What to Say:** Focus on the dangers of legitimizing authoritarian regimes and the importance of supporting democracies. - **Example:** "The recent summit between Trump and Putin risks undermining global efforts for peace. We must hold our leaders accountable to support Ukraine and not reward aggression."
### 6. Build Community Coalitions - **Action:** Join or form local coalitions focused on advocating for peace and justice. - **Example:** Collaborate with local peace groups, human rights organizations, or university student groups to create events or campaigns that raise awareness about the situation in Ukraine.
### 7. Contact International Bodies - **Action:** Encourage international organizations like the United Nations to take a stronger stance against Russian aggression. - **Who to Write to:** - UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres - Email: [Contact form](https://www.un.org/en/contact-us) - Mailing Address: United Nations, 405 East 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017
### 8. Promote Grassroots Movements - **Action:** Get involved with grassroots movements advocating for peace and justice in international relations. - **Example:** Attend rallies, marches, or meetings organized by groups like MoveOn or Peace Action to demonstrate support for Ukraine and against authoritarianism.
### Conclusion By engaging in these actions, we can play a critical role in shaping the narrative around U.S. foreign policy and advocating for a world that prioritizes peace, justice, and the protection of human rights. It is essential to remain vigilant and proactive in our efforts to ensure that our leaders are held accountable and that aggressive actions are not rewarded with legitimacy.