Though disaster could be avoided in Alaska, it was still a Russian PR-victory - Hungarian expert
ukrinform.net -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 12:57:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–Russia Relations, Foreign Policy & International Relations, Political Protests & Rallies
Trump's refusal to accept Putin's de facto ultimatum on Ukraine can be considered the only positive outcome of the bilateral meeting in Alaska, although it also became a PR victory for the Kremlin.
This was stated by Hungarian expert András Rácz, who represents German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), in an exclusive comment to Ukrinform.
"The most important - and probably the only - result of the Anchorage meeting is a negative one, namely that no agreement was reached. In other words, a new Yalta could be avoided, even though Russia was pushing for it. While there is a Russian offer on the table, Trump did not accept it without asking Ukraine and her European allies," the analyst explained.
"Hence, disaster could be avoided, in which concentrated European and Ukrainian diplomacy have played key roles," Rácz noted.
"Ahead of the Anchorage meeting both the US and Russia echoed elevated expectations, which created the impression in the outside world that a negotiated, swift end of the war would be possible," the expert said.
In his opinion, this did not happen, as agreeing about Ukraine without Ukraine at the table could not bring a sustainable peace by definition. "Despite the complicated situation on the frontline, Ukraine is not defeated at all, and her key European allies stand firm near Kyiv. Hence, in fact, it was never more than an illusion that any bilateral US-Russian deal could bring the war to an end. Kyiv is simply not in a situation in which she would have to unconditionally obey, whatever the aggressor and the US agree upon," Rácz said.
He also added that the Ukrainian constitution prevents President Zelensky to agree to any territorial swap, something that apparently both the US and Russia have apparently ignored.
Thinking that a "new Yalta" could work stems from the lasting, systemic underestimation of Ukraine's own ability to shape the events, the expert said.
"A mistake that Russia committed in February 2022 and keeps committing since then," he said.
According to the Hungarian expert, the US clearly demonstrated its military power during the meeting in Alaska, in a classic, 19th century "great power politics"-way.
"Making the Russian President march among lined-up F-22 fighter-jets with a B2 stealth bomber flying over was a clear demonstration of military might. So was the last-minute, unilateral move to prevent a one-to-one Trump-Putin meeting (which could have been dangerous taking into account the manipulative skills of the Russian president) and change the format into a three-on-three, with key advisors and foreign ministers also present," he said.
While such unilateral, assertive moves would hardly be present in times of peace, under today's circumstances it is indeed positive that the US was willing to openly demonstrate her might to the Russian delegation, he noted.
"Strength is the only language that the Kremlin understands and appreciates, and the US was ready to show strength," Rácz said.
At the same time, Russia showed it was not ready for any meaningful compromise: "The offer Putin reportedly presented to Trump is not a compromise-based settlement, but basically an ultimatum that would deprive Ukraine of her key defensive lines, cement in most of the territorial losses, while in exchange Kyiv would get nothing else than a few square kilometers of devastated land and vague Russian promises about not attacking again".
He believes that for Russia "the meeting was a significant PR success".
"Putin could ease his isolation from the West - anyways, he was received on US territory, despite the aggression he has been leading since 2014 and despite all the sanctions and punitive measures. He could air his propaganda messages unopposed, and could do so without making even the slightest bit of concession. Russia did not even stop the air attacks against Ukraine ahead of and during the meeting. Moreover, by agreeing to meet Moscow could - at least, temporarily - avert the introduction of the new sanctions by which Trump threatened in July," said the expert, adding that Russian domestic media praised Putin and pictured the meeting as "the well-earned rehabilitation of Russia's great power status".
"All in all, Alaska was a significant PR victory for the Kremlin both at home and abroad, which came with practically no costs," the expert summarized.
As reported by Ukrinform, President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that Russia has shown no sign that a trilateral meeting involving the leaders of Ukraine, the United States, and Russia will take place. He reaffirmed that the Constitution of Ukraine prohibits the surrender of any territory.
Presidents Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump are scheduled to hold talks on Monday, August 18, at the White House. Finnish President Alexander Stubb, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen are also expected to take part in the discussions.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent comments from András Rácz regarding the bilateral meeting between the United States and Russia in Alaska provide crucial insights into the ongoing geopolitical tensions and the complex dynamics of power in the region. His analysis brings to light the importance of Ukraine's sovereignty and the role of international diplomacy, firmly situating Ukraine not merely as a pawn in a larger geopolitical chess game, but as a key player in its own right. This perspective serves as an important reminder of the historical context surrounding Ukraine's struggle for independence and self-determination, particularly in the wake of Russian aggression since 2014.
Historically, the idea of negotiating peace without the involvement of the affected nation is not new. The Yalta Conference of 1945 remains a haunting reminder of how powerful nations can make decisions that profoundly impact smaller, less powerful states without their consent. The fact that Rácz highlights a potential "new Yalta" underscores a long-standing pattern in international relations where the voices of affected nations are often drowned out by those of larger powers. The lessons of history teach us that such negotiations can lead to further conflict, as they fail to take into account the will and rights of the people directly affected. This is particularly pertinent for Ukraine, a nation that has fought valiantly to assert its sovereignty and territorial integrity against external aggression.
The commentary also touches on a significant aspect of modern diplomacy: the necessity of multilateralism in addressing international conflicts. The assertion that a deal could not be reached because Ukraine was not at the negotiating table emphasizes the need for inclusive dialogue in international relations. Rather than viewing Ukraine's involvement as optional, diplomatic frameworks should recognize that any sustainable peace in the region must prioritize the agency and rights of the Ukrainian people. Rácz’s insistence that Kyiv cannot be sidelined is a clarion call to uphold the principles of self-determination and respect for national sovereignty, ideals that are enshrined in international law and should guide diplomatic efforts.
Moreover, Rácz's observations about the military show of force by the United States during the meeting offer an opportunity to reflect on the implications of such displays of power. While demonstrating military might can be seen as a necessary deterrent against aggression, it also raises questions about the nature of diplomacy and whether the threat of force is an appropriate tool for achieving peace. The reliance on military displays harkens back to a 19th-century mindset of "great power politics," which often disregards the voices of smaller nations and can perpetuate cycles of violence and retaliation. In contrast, diplomatic solutions grounded in mutual respect, dialogue, and cooperation could pave the way for lasting peace and stability in the region.
Finally, it is essential to consider the broader social struggles that are intertwined with the geopolitical conflict. The situation in Ukraine is not merely a matter of national borders; it is also a struggle for democracy, human rights, and self-determination in the face of authoritarianism. The continued support of Ukraine by its European allies and the international community is a testament to the collective understanding that the fight against oppression and for democratic values transcends national boundaries. As we move forward, advocates for social justice must continue to link these struggles, emphasizing that the fight for democracy in Ukraine is part of a larger global struggle against authoritarianism and for the rights of all peoples to determine their own futures.
In conclusion, the analysis of the Alaska meeting offers a rich tapestry of historical context, current geopolitical realities, and the ongoing struggle for social justice. It serves as a reminder that nations must engage in diplomacy that honors the voices of those most affected by conflict. As we reflect on these dynamics, let us advocate for a nuanced understanding of international relations—one that prioritizes dialogue, respect, and the fundamental rights of all nations to shape their destinies free from external coercion.
The recent discussions surrounding the meeting in Anchorage between U.S. representatives and Russian officials underscore a pivotal moment in international relations, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. As noted by Hungarian expert András Rácz, the failure to reach an agreement at this meeting, while initially seen as a setback, ultimately prevented a greater catastrophe, echoing historical patterns of diplomacy that have often sidelined the voices of those most directly impacted by conflict. The specter of a "new Yalta" — reminiscent of the post-World War II agreements that divided Europe — looms large in this discourse, suggesting that any negotiations that exclude the affected parties can lead to destabilization and further suffering. It is important for Americans to recognize the implications of these discussions and to advocate for a diplomatic approach that prioritizes the voices of Ukrainians and their allies.
Historically, the dynamics of great power politics have often favored the interests of established powers at the expense of smaller nations. The original Yalta Conference in 1945 serves as a stark reminder of how geopolitical considerations can overshadow the rights and aspirations of sovereign nations. The current scenario mirrors this historical precedent, where the discussions about Ukraine's fate may be occurring without adequate representation or consideration of Ukrainian sovereignty. This perspective is crucial when engaging with right-leaning individuals who may emphasize the need for strong military posturing while downplaying the importance of inclusive and equitable diplomacy. It can be argued that true strength lies not only in military might but in the ability to foster lasting peace through respect and negotiation.
The article also highlights the role of European allies in supporting Ukraine, which points to the necessity of collective action in the face of aggression. In a globalized world, the interconnectedness of nations means that the repercussions of conflict extend beyond borders. As Americans, we can advocate for policies that support diplomacy over militarism, encouraging our leaders to engage with international partners in a concerted effort to uphold the principles of sovereignty and self-determination. Grassroots movements and public advocacy can play significant roles in shaping U.S. foreign policy, urging the government to prioritize human rights and cooperative security arrangements rather than unilateral military dominance.
Furthermore, the resistance of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to consider territorial concessions, as stipulated by the Ukrainian constitution, illustrates the importance of understanding domestic political contexts in international negotiations. Engaging with this aspect can provide a powerful narrative when discussing foreign policy with others. It's essential to emphasize that any agreement that undermines the aspirations and rights of Ukraine risks not just immediate instability but sets a dangerous precedent for international relations. Supporting international law and the principle of self-determination can help steer discussions toward a more just approach to resolving conflicts.
Finally, the ongoing situation in Ukraine presents an opportunity for Americans to reflect on their own historical and current positions in global politics. By advocating for policies that prioritize diplomacy, inclusivity, and human rights, citizens can play a vital role in shaping a future where negotiations do not come at the expense of those who are most affected. Encouraging dialogue and understanding among different political perspectives is essential. We must remind ourselves and others that the path to peace is often found in collaboration rather than confrontation, and that listening to the voices of nations in crisis is not a sign of weakness but rather a commitment to a more equitable global order.
The article presents a complex geopolitical situation involving the US, Russia, and Ukraine, focusing on the implications of the recent meeting in Alaska. As engaged citizens, there are several actions we can take to advocate for peace, support Ukraine, and ensure that diplomacy prioritizes the voices of those directly affected by these conflicts. Here’s a detailed list of actions we can personally take:
### Personal Actions
1. **Educate Yourself and Others** - Read reputable sources on international relations, Ukraine's history, and current geopolitical dynamics to better understand the situation. - Share your knowledge through discussions, social media, or community forums to raise awareness.
2. **Support Ukrainian Organizations** - Donate to or volunteer with organizations providing humanitarian aid to Ukraine, such as: - **Razom for Ukraine**: [razomforukraine.org](https://razomforukraine.org/) - **Sunflower of Peace**: [sunflowerofpeace.com](https://sunflowerofpeace.com) - Engage in fundraising activities, like organizing community events or online campaigns.
3. **Advocate for Diplomatic Solutions** - Write to your elected representatives urging them to prioritize diplomacy and support Ukraine’s sovereignty in any negotiations.
### Who to Write To
1. **Your Senators and Representatives** - Find your representatives through [congress.gov](https://www.congress.gov) or [whoismyrepresentative.com](https://www.whoismyrepresentative.com). - Example template for writing: - Address: [Representative's Name], [Office Address] - Subject: Support for Ukraine and Diplomatic Solutions - Body: “Dear [Representative's Name], I urge you to support efforts that prioritize diplomatic solutions in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Please advocate for policies that uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty and the voices of its people. Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.”
2. **Local and State Government** - Reach out to your local government representatives, as they can influence state-level policies and responses to the situation. - Example: [Mayor's Name], [City Hall Address]
3. **International Organizations** - Write to representatives of organizations such as the United Nations or European Union, expressing your support for Ukraine and urging them to consider the perspectives of the Ukrainian people in their decisions.
### Petitions to Sign
1. **Online Petitions** - **Change.org**: Look for petitions advocating for the protection of Ukraine’s sovereignty and the promotion of diplomatic resolutions. - Example: A petition demanding the US government increase support for Ukrainian humanitarian efforts.
2. **Create Your Own Petition** - Use platforms like **Care2** or **Change.org** to create a petition focusing on a specific aspect of the crisis, such as supporting Ukraine’s right to self-determination in international discussions.
### Community Involvement
1. **Organize or Attend Local Events** - Participate in or organize community discussions, rallies, or vigils supporting Ukraine. This can raise awareness and show solidarity. - Collaborate with local advocacy groups focused on international peace and security.
2. **Contact Local Media** - Write letters to the editor in local newspapers expressing your views on the situation and urging for a more engaged diplomatic approach from the US.
3. **Engage with Educational Institutions** - Advocate for universities and colleges to host panels or discussions on Ukraine, inviting experts to provide a range of perspectives.
### Conclusion
By taking these actions, we can contribute to a collective effort that emphasizes the importance of diplomacy and the need to consider the voices of those most impacted by international conflicts. Each of us has a role in advocating for peace, justice, and support for Ukraine, helping to shape a future where diplomatic solutions are prioritized.