Analysis: Putin's wins leave Trump with hard choices | CNN Politics
us.cnn.com -- Saturday, August 16, 2025, 1:27:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, Media Coverage & Press Relations
Donald Trump Russia War in Ukraine
See all topics
Follow
Russian President Vladimir Putin got everything he could have hoped for in Alaska. President Donald Trump got very little -- judging by his own pre-summit metrics.
The question now is whether Trump secured any moderate gains or planted seeds for Ukraine's future security if there's an eventual peace deal with Russia that were not immediately obvious after Friday's summit.
And he's left with some searing strategic questions.
Despite Trump's claim to have made "a lot of progress" and that the summit was a "10 out of 10," all signs point to a huge win for the Russian autocrat.
Trump's lavish stage production of Putin's arrival Friday, with near-simultaneous exits from presidential jets and red-carpet strolls, provided some image rehabilitation for a leader who is a pariah in the rest of the West and who is accused of war crimes in Ukraine.
And by the end of their meeting, Trump had offered a massive concession to his visitor by adopting the Russian position that peace moves should concentrate on a final peace deal -- which will likely take months or years to negotiate -- rather than a ceasefire to halt the Russian offensive now. As CNN's Nick Paton Walsh pointed out, that just gives Putin more time to grind down Ukraine.
Most importantly, Trump has, at least for now, backed away from threats to impose tough new sanctions on Russia and expand secondary sanctions on the nations that buy its oil and therefore bankroll its war. He'd threatened such measures by a deadline that expired last week out of frustration with Putin's intransigence and a growing belief the Russian leader was "tapping" him along.
This leverage may have brought Putin to Alaska. But Trump seems to have relaxed it for little in return. "Because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that now," Trump said in an interview with Fox News after the summit.
Dueling shows of force
F-35 jets and a B-2 bomber accompany the plane carrying the Russian President Vladimir Putin as he arrives at Elmendorf-Richardson Joint Base ahead of Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump meeting in Alaska, United States on August 15, 2025.
Fatih Aktas/Anadolu/Getty Images
The meeting began with a B-2 stealth bomber and F-22 fighters roaring overhead in a dramatic moment of US superpower signaling.
But Putin one-upped that symbolism by greeting Trump with the words "Good afternoon, dear neighbor," as he leveraged the summit's location in Alaska to imply that the two countries had important and immediate mutual interests that should not be disrupted by a distant war in Europe.
For Ukrainians and their European allies -- who were shut out of the meeting and whom Trump briefed afterward -- there was at least a moment of relief that Trump didn't sell Kyiv out. The fact that a US-Russia land swap plan didn't emerge from Alaska is a win for Europe's emergency pre-summit diplomacy.
Still, Trump hinted that he will pile pressure on Ukraine's leader when they meet at the White House on Monday. It's "now up to President Zelensky to get it done," Trump told Fox News in the friendly post-summit interview, after refusing to answer questions with Putin in what had been billed as a joint press conference.
Trump's options moving forward
Before the summit, Trump obliterated careful efforts by his staff to lower expectations when he told Fox, "I won't be happy if I walk away without some form of a ceasefire."
President Donald Trump after speaking with reporters aboard Air Force One while en route to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, on Friday, August 15, 2025.
Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP
The failure to get there is important.
Russia is happy to commit to a detailed peace process with interminable negotiations that would allow it to continue fighting -- including in its increasingly successful summer offensive -- while it talks. But Ukrainians are desperate for relief from years of Russian drone and missile attacks on civilians as a generation bleeds out on World War I-style battlefields. Peace talks without a ceasefire will leave it open to Russian or US pressure.
Trump's zeal to work for peace in Ukraine is commendable, even if his repeated public requests for a Nobel Peace Prize raise questions about his ultimate motives. And one upside of the summit is that the US and Russia -- the countries with the biggest nuclear arsenals -- are talking again.
But the underlying premise of Trump's peacemaking is that the force of his personality and his supposedly unique status as the world's greatest dealmaker can end wars. That myth is looking very ragged after his long flight home from Alaska.
And by falling short of his own expectations in the Alaska summit, Trump left himself with some tough calculations about what to do next.
► Does he revert to his previous attempts to pressure Ukraine in search of an imposed peace that would validate Putin's illegal invasion and legitimize the idea that states can rewrite international borders, thereby reversing a foundation of the post-World War II-era?
► Or as the dust settles, and he seeks to repair damage to his prestige, does he revert to US pressure and sanctions to try to reset Russian calculations? He at least left open the possibility of sticks rather than carrots in his Fox interview, saying: "I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don't have to think about that right now."
► Alternatively, Trump could commit to the Russian vision of talks on a final peace agreement. History shows that this would be neither quick nor honored by the Russians over the long term. He's hoping for a three-way summit between Putin, Zelensky and himself. That would satisfy his craving for spectacle and big made-for-TV events. But after Friday's evidence that Russia doesn't want to end the war, it's hard to see how it would create breakthroughs.
► Another possibility is that Trump simply gets discouraged or bored with the details and drudgery of a long-term peace process that lacks big, quick wins he can celebrate with his supporters.
US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin hold a press conference following their meeting at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, on August 15, 2025.
Jeenah Moon/Reuters
"A large part of (Trump) is all about style. There's not a lot of real enjoyment of getting into the substance of things," Jim Townsend, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO policy who is now affiliated with the Center for New American Security, said before the summit. "He likes the meringue on top. And I think that's how you can be manipulated."
Trump's style-before-substance strategy clearly backfired in Alaska. Putin appeared far more prepared as Trump winged it. In retrospect, it's hard to see what the Russian president offered to US envoy Steve Witkoff in the Kremlin that convinced the administration that the Alaska talks were a good idea.
And Russia is clearly playing on Trump's desire for photo-op moments in the expectation that it can keep him engaged while offering few other concessions.
Trump's Nobel campaign suffered a setback
Trump may remain the best hope for peace in Ukraine. He can speak directly to Putin, unlike Ukraine or its European allies. Ultimately, US power will be needed to guarantee Ukrainian security, since Europeans lack the capacity to do it alone. And the US retains the capability to hurt Russia and Putin with direct and secondary sanctions.
But Trump has to want to do it. And for now he seems back under Putin's spell.
The Russian leader's transparent manipulation of the US president and Trump's credulity will worry Ukraine. On Fox, Trump said Putin praised his second term, saying the US was "as hot as a pistol" and he had previously thought the US was "dead."
Putin also publicly reinforced Trump's talking point that the invasion three years ago would "never have happened" if he had been president. "I'm quite sure that it would indeed be so. I can confirm that," said Putin.
Rescue workers extinguish a fire on a civilian enterprise in the Novobavarskyi district struck by a Russian drone on June 4, 2025, in Kharkiv, Ukraine.
Viacheslav Mavrychev/Suspilne Ukraine/Global Images Ukraine/Getty Images
Trump told Fox's Sean Hannity that he was "so happy" to hear validation from Putin and also that the Russian leader had reinforced another one of his false claims, telling him that "you can't have a great democracy with mail-in voting." That a US president would take such testimony at face value from a totalitarian strongman is mind-boggling -- even more so in the light of US intelligence agency assessments that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump win.
Ultimately, events in Alaska drove a hole through a White House claim in a recent statement that Trump is "the President of Peace." Trump has touted interventions that cooled hostilities in standoffs between India and Pakistan; Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo; Thailand and Cambodia; and Armenia and Azerbaijan to argue he's forging peace around the globe at an extraordinary clip.
"I seem to have an ability to end them," Trump said on Fox of these conflicts.
He does deserve credit for effectively using US influence in these efforts, including with the unique cudgel of US trade benefits. He has saved lives, even if the deals are often less comprehensive than meets the eye.
But his failure so far to end the Ukraine war that he pledged would be so easy to fix -- along with US complicity in the humanitarian disaster in Gaza -- means a legacy as a peacemaker and the Nobel Prize that he craves remain out of reach.
Once, he predicted he could end the Ukraine war in 24 hours. Despite his bluster, a comment on Fox shows that after Alaska, he has a better understanding of how hard it will be.
"I thought this would be the easiest of them all and it was the most difficult."
Sign Our PetitionThe recent summit between President Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin in Alaska encapsulates the complexities and contradictions within United States foreign policy, particularly concerning Russia's aggressive maneuvers in Ukraine. As observers analyze the implications of this meeting, it becomes evident that, while Trump presented a facade of diplomatic progress, the reality underscores a troubling concession to a regime accused of war crimes. This situation is not just a bilateral issue; it has significant ramifications for global security, the integrity of international norms, and the ongoing struggles for justice and sovereignty faced by nations like Ukraine.
Trump's depiction of the summit as a "10 out of 10" reflects a broader pattern in his administration's dealings with authoritarian regimes—a tendency to prioritize perceived personal victories over substantial diplomatic outcomes. The Russian leader emerged from the meeting with a narrative that bolstered his image, while Trump seemingly settled for a vague promise of future negotiations rather than immediate, actionable commitments. By pivoting the focus away from a ceasefire to a protracted peace deal, the U.S. President inadvertently granted Putin the breathing room he needs to sustain his military aggression in Ukraine. This should not merely be seen as a political misstep; it represents a failure to uphold international standards of accountability and justice that have been hard-won through decades of struggle against totalitarianism and imperialism.
Historically, the West has often struggled with its approach to autocratic leaders. The post-World War II era established a framework for collective security, enshrined in institutions like the United Nations, that sought to prevent the kind of expansionist policies exemplified by the Soviet Union. Yet, this foundational principle is under siege from leaders who prioritize transactional relationships over adherence to international law. The consequences of such an approach are evident in the ongoing devastation in Ukraine, where the fight for sovereignty is not only a local struggle but a critical front in the broader battle for human rights and democratic governance. The narrative around this summit serves as a reminder that the fight against authoritarianism is interconnected with the principles of justice and equity that underpin democratic societies.
Additionally, the decision to forgo immediate sanctions against Russia, despite the Kremlin's unprovoked aggression, raises questions about the moral compass guiding U.S. foreign policy. The justification that engaging in dialogue with adversaries is preferable to confrontation fails to recognize that some leaders exploit diplomatic overtures as a cover for further violations. By failing to hold Putin accountable, the Trump administration sends a signal not only to Russia but to other authoritarian regimes that aggressive behavior may be tolerated or even rewarded. This creates a dangerous precedent that undermines the very fabric of international cooperation and justice, allowing powerful nations to sidestep responsibilities without facing tangible repercussions.
Furthermore, the absence of Ukraine and its European allies from the summit underscores a significant oversight in the diplomatic process. It highlights a troubling trend in international relations where the voices of those directly affected by geopolitical decisions are marginalized or excluded altogether. This situation reflects a historical pattern that has often seen the interests of powerful states overshadow the rights and needs of smaller nations. As we consider the implications of this summit, it is paramount to advocate for inclusive dialogue that amplifies the narratives of those who are fighting for their sovereignty and dignity. True diplomacy must involve listening to and prioritizing the voices of those who stand at the frontline of conflict, ensuring that their struggles are recognized and addressed.
In summary, the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska serves as a critical lens through which we can examine the complexities of contemporary foreign policy, the struggles for justice and sovereignty, and the vital importance of holding autocrats accountable. This incident should galvanize discussions about the need for a more principled approach to international relations—one that champions human rights, supports democratic movements, and prioritizes the voices of the oppressed. As we navigate these turbulent geopolitical waters, the lessons of history remind us that the defense of democracy and justice is a collective responsibility that requires vigilance, solidarity, and an unwavering commitment to the values that underpin a just global order.
The recent summit between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has sparked considerable debate regarding the implications for U.S. foreign policy, especially concerning the ongoing war in Ukraine. This meeting, held in Alaska, seems to have favored Putin, who walked away with significant gains, while Trump’s claims of progress remain questionable at best. The geopolitical landscape is thus complicated, with Trump’s concessions raising alarm bells not only for Ukraine but also for broader U.S. foreign relations. It’s crucial to analyze these developments within a historical context that underscores the persistent dynamics of power politics and the often troubling relationships between the U.S. and authoritarian regimes.
Historically, the U.S. has navigated a complex relationship with Russia, particularly since the Cold War. Multiple administrations have struggled to balance diplomacy with the undeniable need to confront authoritarianism. The current situation in Ukraine, where Russian aggression has led to widespread conflict and humanitarian crises, demands a clear stance against such violations of international law. Trump's apparent willingness to engage in a conciliatory approach with Putin, particularly his shift to emphasizing a final peace deal rather than an immediate ceasefire, could be seen as a retreat from a proactive U.S. role in defending democratic values and supporting allied nations. This is particularly troubling given the historical precedent of appeasing authoritarian regimes, which often leads to further aggressions rather than resolutions.
As Americans, we must confront the implications of this summit and advocate for a more robust and principled foreign policy. The first step is to engage in informed discussions about the consequences of the meeting. We should emphasize the importance of sanctions as a diplomatic tool, highlighting how Trump’s retreat from imposing further sanctions on Russia undermines the U.S.’s credibility and emboldens authoritarian leaders like Putin. Advocacy for reinstating or strengthening sanctions against Russia is vital to signal to both the international community and domestic audiences the U.S.'s commitment to supporting democracy and human rights. Engaging with our congressional representatives and urging them to take a firmer stance on sanctions can help shift the narrative back toward accountability.
Moreover, raising awareness about the long-term implications of such diplomatic overtures is crucial. The summit’s optics, including the show of military might juxtaposed with Putin’s warm greeting, serve to create a false sense of camaraderie and shared interests. It is essential to educate those around us on the dangers of normalizing relations with authoritarian figures, especially at a time when their actions are provoking widespread suffering and instability. Discussing the historical consequences of past appeasements can serve to illuminate the risks of this diplomatic approach. Engaging in community forums, writing op-eds, and utilizing social media platforms can help disseminate this critical information and galvanize public opinion against such appeasement.
Furthermore, solidarity with Ukraine and its allies is imperative. We can amplify the voices of those advocating for Ukrainian sovereignty and support grassroots organizations working toward humanitarian relief and advocacy. Informing others about the plight of the Ukrainian people and the need for international solidarity can build a more cohesive front against Russian aggression. Hosting educational events, participating in rallies, and connecting with international coalitions that focus on democratic resilience can help reinforce the message that the U.S. stands with those who are fighting against oppression.
In conclusion, the recent Trump-Putin summit presents a concerning picture of U.S. foreign policy that risks normalizing diplomatic relations with authoritarian regimes at the expense of democratic principles. By engaging in informed discourse, advocating for stronger sanctions, and supporting international solidarity efforts, we can counteract this troubling trend. History has shown that appeasement often leads to greater conflicts, and it is our responsibility to ensure that the lessons learned are not forgotten. Mobilizing as informed citizens will empower us to advocate for a foreign policy that prioritizes human rights and supports our allies in their struggles for democracy and security.
Analyzing the article on the recent summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin reveals a complex geopolitical landscape that demands a proactive response from individuals concerned about international justice, human rights, and global security. Below are actionable steps individuals can take to address the issues raised in the article, particularly regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine and the implications of U.S. foreign policy.
### What Can We Personally Do About This?
1. **Advocate for Human Rights**: Engage with organizations that are focused on human rights violations in Ukraine and Russia. Support their campaigns and amplify their messages.
2. **Support Ukrainians**: Provide tangible support to Ukrainian organizations and refugees. This could involve donations, volunteering, or raising awareness in your community.
3. **Contact Elected Representatives**: Express your concerns about U.S. foreign policy, especially regarding sanctions on Russia and support for Ukraine.
4. **Raise Public Awareness**: Utilize social media and community forums to educate others about the situation in Ukraine and the implications of U.S.-Russia relations.
5. **Participate in Petitions**: Join or create petitions that call for stronger support for Ukraine and accountability for war crimes committed by Russia.
### Exact Actions We Can Take
#### 1. **Contact Elected Representatives** - **Who to Write To**: Your local Congressperson and Senators. - **Example Contacts**: - **Senator Chuck Schumer** (NY) - Email: schumer.senate.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 322 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 - **Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez** (NY-14) - Email: ocasiocortez.house.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 2302 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
#### 2. **Join Petitions** - **Example Petition**: "Demand Stronger Sanctions Against Russia" - Platform: Change.org or MoveOn.org. - Look for existing petitions or start one that demands the U.S. government impose tougher sanctions on Russia and increase military and humanitarian support for Ukraine.
#### 3. **Support Human Rights Organizations** - **Donate or Volunteer**: - **Human Rights Watch**: HRW.org - **Amnesty International**: Amnesty.org - **Ukrainian Red Cross**: redcross.org.ua/en/ #### 4. **Raise Awareness** - **Social Media Campaign**: Start a hashtag campaign on platforms like Twitter or Instagram focused on #StandWithUkraine or #EndRussianAggression. - **Community Forums**: Organize or participate in local discussions, town halls, or panels addressing the geopolitical situation.
#### 5. **Write Letters to the Editor** - **Local Newspapers**: Write letters advocating for a stronger U.S. response to Russia's actions and support for Ukraine. - **What to Say**: Emphasize the moral imperative to support Ukraine, the importance of international law, and the need for a unified global response to authoritarian regimes.
### What to Say in Communications
When drafting your messages, consider using the following points: - Express your concern about the implications of the recent summit on Ukraine's stability and security. - Urge representatives to support stronger sanctions on Russia to deter further aggression. - Call for increased humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine to support its right to self-defense. - Advocate for a clear stance on human rights violations and the need for accountability for war crimes.
By taking these actions, individuals can contribute to a broader movement advocating for justice, peace, and support for Ukraine in the face of ongoing aggression. Every voice matters, and collective action can lead to meaningful change in our global landscape.