Truth and Resistance Dove Logo
Know what you should know!

Home     Categories     Search     Subscribe

The Trump-Putin 2025 Summit | Frontpage Mag

frontpagemag.com -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 5:52:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–Russia Relations, Foreign Policy & International Relations, Presidential Campaigns
The Trump-Putin 2025 Summit | Frontpage Mag

[Craving even more FPM content? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more. Click here to sign up.]

So just what was the outcome of the recent - and historic - Trump/Putin Summit at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska? Oddly enough, we still don't know. All that we do know is that the two world leaders talked for several hours, made brief public statements, then reboarded their respective planes and hightailed it out of town, leaving behind a bewildered world press and a plethora of unanswered questions.

In the U.S. media, the details will inevitably dribble out in dribs and drabs, colored in each case by whatever "angle" confirms the interlocutor's biases. This is already the case, of course, with Trump-loathing "journalists" at CNN bashing the president for putting that murderous international pariah, Vladimir Putin, back on the world stage ("Trump's getting 'played' once again by Putin!"), while right-leaning pundits at Fox News praised President Trump for his putative leadership and efforts to bring an end to a major European war ("at least Trump's trying to do something, while Biden never even picked up the phone to call Putin!").

Thus have the domestic battle lines been drawn: full disclosure, I lean toward the latter perspective. Yet as a historian who has spent all of this century studying conflict in this uniquely violent corner of the world (eastern Europe), I will try to lay out my thoughts with all the objectivity I can muster.

Let me begin by pointing out that the western narrative on most everything from Putin's health to the status of the Russo-Ukraine war is often little more than gaslighting. Perhaps you think I just violated the pledge I made directly above, but consider: For years we've been assured that Putin is sick, he's even dying; he has cancer or some other dreadful malady. And, yet, after all this time, he's still here, and he looked vigorous and athletic as he walked down the red carpet to shake hands with President Trump. So scratch that little fairytale. We're also told that endless rounds of sanctions are bringing Russia to its knees, but somehow it has managed since February 2022 to transition to something close to a total war footing, producing more drones, tanks, artillery, missiles and munitions than the U.S. and all other NATO countries combined.

Most significantly, Russia is not losing on the battlefield; indeed, by almost every metric -- numbers of men and matériel, personnel/equipment losses, ground captured, tactical (and now even operational) success -- Russia is winning and Ukraine is losing. And no, Russia is not running out of fighting men (I heard this fantastical fairytale again today); in fact, the Russian military is recruiting some 35-40,000 men each month, while losing perhaps 20,000 a month on the battlefield (a net gain of 15-20,000 a month). Compare that situation to Ukraine, which is so desperate for warm bodies it is kidnapping middle-aged men, giving them a few weeks of training (if that), and sending them to the front to die (often within a few hours).

So it is no wonder Putin came to the summit brimming with confidence. Moreover, in just the past week or so, the military situation in Ukraine has taken a dramatic turn in Russia's favor: the relatively static geometry of the front has finally begun to crack with Russian ground forces making major territorial gains (at least in the context of this war) and forcing the AFU (Armed Forces of Ukraine) into their most alarming operational crisis since the start of Russia's Special Military Operation (SMO) in February 2022.

Russian forces have broken through north of the town of Pokrovsk, a vital logistics and communications hub in the Donetsk region of the Donbas that now faces imminent encirclement. In other key sectors of the 1200 kilometer front (e.g., around Kostyantynivka, Lyman, and, far to the north, around Kupyansk) the situation also looks grim for Ukraine. At the root of the AFU's deteriorating position is its growing shortage of combat infantry. In fact, Ukraine's manpower crisis is now so severe that it lacks the troops to hold anything resembling a contiguous front line against mounting Russian pressure. As a historian of the eastern front in World War II, I am intrigued by how much Ukraine's current manpower situation echos that of the German Wehrmacht in Soviet Russia in 1943/44. Like Ukraine currently, Nazi Germany's eastern armies suffered from a staggering shortage of infantry, resulting in their inevitable defeat.

Due to the inevitable "fog of war" -- in this case, the constant media gaslighting and the highly disparate estimates of so-called military experts -- it is impossible to accurately determine either Ukraine's or Russia's total personnel losses over the past three-and-one-half years; figures for the AFU range from several hundred thousand to well over a million irrecoverable losses. What is certain, however, is that most of the losses on both sides are combat infantry.

As noted, however, the armed forces committed by Putin to his Special Military Operation have only grown in size, while the Russians continue to adeptly adjust their tactics to the realities of 21 Century warfare, including the virtually omnipresent use of unmanned vehicles for both attack and battlefield reconnaissance and, in general, the unprecedented use of sophisticated intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) tools that have made this war the most transparent in history. Above the battlefield, Russian air forces reign supreme. All of which (and more) makes Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's refusal to back off from his maximalist goals, which include the return of every meter of territory seized by Russia, including the Crimea, little more than a tragic farce. For by refusing to budge, Zelensky may be forfeiting his final opportunity to end this war without a complete collapse of not only his sagging military defenses but of his country as well.

So if my analysis is accurate, what does it tell us about Putin's thinking and behavoir at yesterday's historical summit meeting? It tells us that he sat down for his discussions with Trump in a solid strategic position. Yes, the threat of addition sanctions (primary and secondary) is of concern to the Russian leader, but he has weathered a blizzard of U.S./NATO sanctions to date, and with the support of China, India, Iran, and others he will likely continue to do so; more to the point, with his armies beginning to dominate the battlefield, they are building relentlessly on a situation that began to manifest in the wake of Ukraine's disastrous summer offensive of 2023.

Thus, one doesn't have to be a Kissinger or a Metternich to conclude that, while Putin may have made a "good faith" gesture or two (perhaps in the furtherance of U.S.-Russian bilateral relations), he conceded nothing that might have adversely affected conditions on the battlefield. Final victory, Putin knows, may lurk just round the corner -- as in, the end came slowly, then all at once -- and his primary concern now (or one of them at least) is not to push that victory too hard and/or too fast, thereby risking a potential NATO intervention on the ground, in particular by the U.K., whose leadership seems to have lost their minds over this war.

Putin's strategic position is also buttressed by his continued popularity at home. Indeed, unlike the war in Afghanistan of the 1980s, which quickly became unpopular among the then-Soviet peoples, the war in Ukraine is considered a proxy war on the part of a hostile NATO and U.S. aimed at the very existence of the Russian Federation: And in this, Putin and his people are largely of one mind. More importantly for Putin, his entire legacy (and perhaps his personal well being) hinges on a successful outcome to the war, whatever shape that may take.

Then where does this leave us? It leaves us essentially where we were on August 14, 2025. What we know so far is that the meeting was relatively cordial (according to some accounts, Trump got somewhat angry at the end, with the wily Putin who knows Trump only too well, careful to beguile and cajole our Commander-in-Chief while giving nothing at all away. And although Trump sounded upbeat after the summit, it seems likely that no progress was made on the war, and I doubt the vital issue of a potential ceasefire was even addressed. (Update: There has been speculation in the press about Trump and Putin reaching a "tentative peace agreement." However, it would come at the expense of Ukraine ceding the Donbas to Russia, a non-starter for Zelensky.)

Perhaps the one positive result from the summit is that -- given Putin's invitation to Trump to visit Moscow -- the discussions may go on. And if somehow, someway, future negotiations lead to a lasting peace, this initial summit just may have launched the start of that process. But that's a tall order. For one thing, the Russian leader justifiably has bitter memories of negotiations with the western powers that took place from 2014/15 (the Minsk negotiations in Belarus) right up to the start of Putin's SMO in February 2024, and which were not always conducted in good faith by western interlocutors. Thus, Putin most likely suffers from a trust deficit that will have to be overcome before any negotiations can bear lasting fruit.

In the interim, Russians and Ukrainians will continue their hideous war, with both Putin and Zelensky obsessively pursuing their maximalist (albeit mutually exclusive) objectives; and they will do so until the Dnepr runs red with blood. Because as my years of study have taught me, the eastern Europeans are simply not like us: They never got the message that "war is never the answer;" that it is no longer a legitimate instrument of national policy.

Where this leaves Mr. Trump in his seemingly sincere efforts to negotiate an end to the war is unclear. What is clear, however, is that any attempt to forge a just and lasting peace between such martial peoples may well signify the greatest challenge of Trump's political life.

Expand

Sign Our Petition


Opinion:

The recent summit between former President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has sparked a flurry of discourse, centering on the geopolitical dynamics at play and the implications for global peace and security. The article in question presents a narrative that praises the summit as a diplomatic endeavor while dismissing the significant concerns surrounding Putin's regime and its aggressive actions in Ukraine. To understand the broader implications of such a meeting, it is essential to contextualize these events within a historical framework of U.S.-Russia relations, the ongoing struggle for democracy and human rights in Eastern Europe, and the larger quest for peace in a world often driven by militaristic policies.

Historically, the relationship between the United States and Russia has oscillated between competition and cooperation. The Cold War era cast a long shadow over these interactions, instilling a persistent skepticism towards Russian intentions. However, the recent resurgence of authoritarianism, particularly under Putin's leadership, has transformed the Russian state into a significant threat not only to Ukraine but also to democratic norms worldwide. The invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the subsequent military aggression raised alarm bells and underscored the need for robust international responses. In this context, a summit that seemingly legitimizes Putin’s position on the global stage raises ethical questions about what kind of message it sends to allies, dissidents, and those fighting for democracy in repressive regimes.

The article’s assertion that Trump is attempting to forge peace in Europe is juxtaposed against the backdrop of a war that has led to the death of thousands and has displaced millions. While dialogue is a crucial component of conflict resolution, it must be coupled with a firm stance against human rights abuses and military aggression. Engaging with a leader like Putin, who has consistently demonstrated a disregard for international law and human rights, could be interpreted as an endorsement of his actions. This is particularly troubling given the ongoing struggles of the Ukrainian people, who are fighting not just for their territorial integrity but for the very principles of self-determination and democracy, which resonate with leftist values.

Additionally, the article attempts to undermine the effectiveness of sanctions against Russia, suggesting that they have not diminished the country’s military capabilities. It is critical to acknowledge that sanctions are not a panacea; however, they play a vital role in signaling international disapproval of aggressive actions and deterring further escalation. The dismissal of sanctions as ineffective overlooks the multifaceted nature of economic and diplomatic pressure, which, when combined with military aid to Ukraine and support for democratic movements, can create an environment conducive to peace. The notion that Russia is thriving despite sanctions must be examined more critically, as it could lead to complacency in addressing the underlying issues of authoritarian governance and militarism.

Furthermore, the framing of the ongoing conflict as a binary struggle between the U.S. and Russia simplifies the complex dynamics at play. It overlooks the voices of those who are most affected by this conflict—Ukrainians, Russian dissidents, and those in neighboring countries who fear the spread of authoritarianism. Solidarity with these groups is essential, as they represent the frontline of a broader struggle against tyranny and for social justice. Engaging in nuanced discussions about their experiences and the implications of international relations can provide valuable insights for addressing the challenges posed by authoritarian regimes.

In conclusion, the Trump-Putin summit serves as a poignant reminder of the intricate and often perilous dance between diplomacy and accountability in international relations. It highlights the necessity of grounding discussions about geopolitical affairs in an understanding of historical contexts, power dynamics, and the lived experiences of those fighting for justice. As advocates for progressive values engage with right-wing perspectives that may romanticize such summits, it is crucial to emphasize the importance of standing in solidarity with marginalized communities, promoting democratic principles, and holding authoritarian regimes accountable for their actions. The future of global peace and security rests on our ability to navigate these complex issues with both clarity and compassion.

Action:

The recent Trump-Putin summit held in Anchorage, Alaska, has sparked a myriad of responses and concerns, particularly among those who regard the growing influence of authoritarian regimes as a significant threat to democratic values. While the article under analysis positions itself in favor of Trump’s approach to engaging with Putin, it leaves out critical historical context that is essential for understanding the implications of such diplomacy. Over the last two decades, the unchecked actions of Putin's Russia, especially its aggression toward Ukraine, have prompted widespread international condemnation and sanctions, with the aim of holding the Kremlin accountable for its violations of human rights and international law. The summit, therefore, raises important questions about the efficacy and morality of normalizing relations with a leader whose regime has been characterized by widespread repression and territorial expansionism.

Historically, the post-Cold War era has been defined by a fragile balance of power, where democratic nations have attempted to establish a framework for global governance. This framework is under strain due to the rise of populist leaders like Trump, who often prioritize personal diplomacy over multilateral cooperation. Engaging with Putin without addressing the ongoing aggression in Ukraine and the broader consequences of his policies can inadvertently legitimize a regime that undermines democratic institutions both domestically and internationally. The normalization of relations can lead to the erosion of hard-won human rights protections and can embolden similar authoritarian figures around the world who seek to exploit democratic vulnerabilities.

In the face of such developments, what can average Americans do? First, they need to engage in informed discussions about foreign policy and the nuances of international relations. It is essential to emphasize the importance of upholding democratic values and human rights when engaging with authoritarian regimes. Citizens can organize forums and discussions to raise awareness about the implications of U.S. foreign policy decisions, advocating for transparency and accountability in dealings with leaders like Putin. By fostering informed dialogues, individuals can challenge the narratives that seek to downplay Russia's aggressive actions and instead advocate for a foreign policy grounded in international law and human rights.

Moreover, it is crucial to hold elected officials accountable. Americans should demand that their representatives prioritize diplomacy that does not compromise core democratic values. This can be done through petitions, town hall meetings, and direct communication with lawmakers. Grassroots movements can be particularly effective in amplifying these demands, mobilizing citizens to collectively push for a foreign policy that prioritizes collaboration with allies and international institutions rather than appeasing authoritarian leaders. Engaging in local and national campaigns focused on human rights and democracy can help create a political climate where such values are seen as non-negotiable.

Lastly, one of the most effective forms of advocacy is through education. Promoting comprehensive education on global issues, the history of U.S.-Russia relations, and the consequences of authoritarianism can empower citizens to engage meaningfully in political discourse. Schools, community centers, and online platforms can serve as venues for workshops and discussions that demystify the complexities of international relations. By equipping citizens with knowledge, we create a more informed electorate capable of discerning between genuine diplomatic engagement and mere appeasement of despots.

In conclusion, the Trump-Putin summit is not merely a political event; it is a reflection of deeper ideological divides and a crucial moment for American foreign policy. Engaging critically with the outcomes of such meetings, advocating for accountability, and fostering educated discourse are essential steps for citizens who wish to uphold democratic principles in the face of authoritarianism. By taking these actions, individuals can contribute to a political environment that prioritizes human rights, democratic governance, and international cooperation in addressing global challenges.

To Do:

In light of the recent Trump-Putin summit and the implications it has for international relations and domestic political discourse, there are several actionable steps individuals can take to engage with the issues at hand. Below is a detailed list of ideas and actions that can be pursued:

### Personal Actions:

1. **Educate Yourself and Others:** - Familiarize yourself with the complexities of U.S.-Russia relations, the ongoing situation in Ukraine, and the historical context. Share your knowledge with friends and family to foster informed discussions. - Suggested Reading: "The New Cold War" by Edward Lucas, and "Ukraine and the Art of Strategy" by Lawrence Freedman.

2. **Engage in Local and Online Discussions:** - Participate in community forums, discussions, or social media groups focused on foreign policy and international relations to raise awareness and share perspectives.

3. **Support Independent Journalism:** - Subscribe to and share independent news outlets that provide in-depth analysis and diverse perspectives on international affairs, such as The Intercept or Al Jazeera English.

### Specific Actions:

1. **Petitions:** - Look for petitions that call for increased transparency in U.S.-Russia relations and demand a more humanitarian approach to foreign policy. Websites like Change.org or MoveOn.org often host relevant petitions. - Example Petition: "Demand Transparency in Foreign Policy" on Change.org.

2. **Contact Elected Officials:** - Write to your congressional representatives to express your concerns about the handling of U.S.-Russia relations and the need for a more diplomatic approach toward Ukraine. - **Who to Write To:** - Your Representative in the House of Representatives: - Find your representative's contact information at [House.gov](https://www.house.gov). - Your Senators: - Find your senators' contact information at [Senate.gov](https://www.senate.gov).

- **Sample Email Template:** ``` Subject: Urgent Need for a Thoughtful Approach to U.S.-Russia Relations

Dear [Representative/Senator Name],

I am writing to express my concern regarding the recent Trump-Putin summit and its implications for U.S. foreign policy. As a constituent, I urge you to advocate for increased transparency and a shift towards a more diplomatic approach in dealing with Russia, particularly in relation to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

It is vital that we prioritize peace and humanitarian efforts over militaristic strategies. I encourage you to consider these urgent matters in your legislative actions and public statements.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email] ```

3. **Join Advocacy Groups:** - Become involved with organizations that focus on peaceful resolutions to international conflicts and advocacy for human rights, such as: - **Amnesty International:** [amnesty.org](https://www.amnesty.org) - **Human Rights Watch:** [hrw.org](https://www.hrw.org)

4. **Social Media Advocacy:** - Use your social media platforms to raise awareness about the situation in Ukraine and the implications of U.S.-Russia relations. Share articles, infographics, and personal insights to educate your network.

5. **Attend Local Events or Webinars:** - Participate in local events, lectures, or webinars hosted by universities or think tanks that address U.S.-Russia relations. Engage with speakers and participants to deepen your understanding and network with like-minded individuals.

6. **Support Peace Movements:** - Look for local or national peace organizations that work towards de-escalating military tensions globally. Volunteer your time or donate to causes that promote peace and diplomacy.

### Conclusion: Addressing the complexities of international relations, particularly regarding the Trump-Putin summit, requires collective action and personal commitment. By educating ourselves and advocating for a more humane and diplomatic approach to foreign policy, we can contribute to a broader movement aimed at promoting peace and understanding on a global scale.


Sign Our Petition



10 Related Article(s):

Ukrainian strike kills one, wounds 10 in Russia: governor | News

RUSSIA HOAX 2.0: NBC Cites Cooked Election Intel in Collusion Callback

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, August 14, 2025

Alaska Summit to Foster US-Russia Trust - Ex-Austrian Diplomat

Trump and Putin are meeting in Alaska today - what does each side want?

In the news today: Air Canada flight attendants could strike tonight

Trump eyes trilateral talks with Zelensky after Alaska summit with Putin

There's nothing 'hot' about Trump, Kennedy's 'perennial bronze shade' | Letters

What Will Trump and Putin Have to Say in Alaska?

Trump Departs For Alaska Summit | Putin Trump Meeting In Alaska | Russia Ukraine War | N18G


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