Trump runs into the difficulty of Putin diplomacy and ending a long war
newsday.com -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 8:18:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, Media Coverage & Press Relations
NEW YORK -- President Donald Trump walked into a summit with Russia's Vladimir Putin pressing for a ceasefire deal and threatening "severe consequences" and tough new sanctions if the Kremlin leader failed to agree to halt the fighting in Ukraine.
Instead, Trump was the one who stood down, dropping his demand for a ceasefire in favor of pursuing a full peace accord -- a position that aligns with Putin's.
After calls with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders, Trump wrote as he flew home from Friday's meeting in Alaska that it had been "determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up."
It was a dramatic reversal that laid bare the challenges of dealing with Putin, a cunning adversary, as well as the complexities of a conflict that Trump had repeatedly boasted during his campaign that he could solve within 24 hours.
While European leaders were relieved that Trump did not agree to a deal that favored Moscow, the summit allowed Putin to reclaim his place on the world stage and may have bought Russia more time to push forward with its offensive in Ukraine.
"We're back to where we were before without him having gone to Alaska," said Fiona Hill, who served as Trump's senior adviser on Russia at the National Security Council during his first term, including when he last met Putin in Helsinki in 2018.
In an interview, Hill argued that Trump had emerged from the meeting in a weaker position because of his reversal. Other leaders, she said, might now look at the U.S. president and think he's "not the big guy that he thinks he is and certainly not the dealmaking genius."
"All the way along, Trump was convinced he has incredible forces of persuasion," she said, but he came out of the meeting without a ceasefire -- the "one thing" he had been pushing for.
Trump administration officials defended the move.
Special envoy Steve Witkoff said on " Fox News Sunday " that Trump had "talked about a ceasefire until he made a lot of different wins in this meeting and began to realize that we could be talking about a peace deal. The ultimate deal here is a peace deal."
"We are intent on trying to hammer out a peace deal that ends the fighting permanently. Very, very quickly -- quicker than a ceasefire," he said on CNN.
At home, Democrats expressed alarm at what at times seemed like a day of deference, with Trump clapping for Putin as he walked down a red carpet during an elaborate ceremony welcoming him to the U.S. for the first time in a decade. The two rode together in the presidential limousine and exchanged compliments.
Trump seemed to revel in particular in Putin echoing his oft-repeated assertion that Russia never would have invaded Ukraine if Trump had been in office instead of Democrat Joe Biden at the time.
Before news cameras, Trump did not use the opportunity to castigate Putin for launching the largest ground invasion in Europe since World War II or for human rights abuses he's been accused of committing. Instead, Putin spoke first and invited Trump to Moscow next.
"President Trump appears to have been played yet again by Vladimir Putin," said Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "The President rolled out a red carpet and warmly greeted a murderous dictator on American soil and reports indicate he got nothing concrete in return."
"If President Trump won't act, Congress must do so decisively by passing crushing sanctions when we return in the coming weeks," she said.
Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Putin "got everything he wanted," including a photo-op with Trump.
"He is intentionally murdering civilians, he's kidnapping children, and now he got to stand next to the President of the United States -- legitimized in the view of the world," the Democrat said.
Former Vice President Mike Pence, who often criticizes Trump on foreign policy, commended his former boss for seeking peace.
"I think he deserves credit as leader of the free world for not giving up on Ukraine," he said on CNN's "State of the Union.
Trump has tried to cast himself as a peacemaker, taking credit for helping deescalate conflicts between India and Pakistan as well as Thailand and Cambodia. He mediated a peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo and another between the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan to end decades of fighting.
Trump has set his eye on the Nobel Peace Prize, with numerous allies offering nominations.
But Trump has struggled to made headway on the world's two most vexing conflicts: the Russia-Ukraine war and Israel's offensive against Hamas in Gaza.
Republican lawmakers were largely reserved and generally called for continued talks and constructive actions from the Trump administration.
"President Trump brought Rwanda and the DRC to terms, India and Pakistan to terms, Armenia and Azerbaijan to terms. I believe in our President, and believe he will do what he always does -- rise to the challenge," said Rep. Brian Mast, a Florida Republican who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, wrote on social media after the summit that "while the press conference offered few details about their meeting," she was "cautiously optimistic about the signals that some level of progress was made."
Murkowski said it "was also encouraging to hear both presidents reference future meetings" but that Ukraine "must be part of any negotiated settlement and must freely agree to its terms."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and close Trump ally, said he was "very proud" of the president for having the face-to-face meeting and was "cautiously optimistic" that the war might end "well before Christmas" if a trilateral meeting between Trump, Zelenskyy and Putin transpires.
Zelenskyy plans to meet with Trump on Monday in Washington, joined by European leaders.
"I have all the confidence in the world that Donald Trump will make it clear to Putin this war will never start again. If it does, you're going to pay a heavy price," Graham said on Fox News.
For some Trump allies, the very act of him meeting with Putin was success enough: conservative activist and podcaster Charlie Kirk called it "a great thing."
In Europe, the summit was seen as a major diplomatic coup for Putin, who has been eager to emerge from geopolitical isolation.
Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, deputy head of Russia's Security Council, praised the summit as a breakthrough in restoring high-level dialogue between Moscow and Washington.
Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt called the meeting "a distinct win for Putin. He didn't yield an inch" but was also "a distinct setback for Trump. No ceasefire in sight."
"What the world sees is a weak and wobbling America," Bildt posted on X.
Witkoff disagreed.
"I think we ought to be focusing on what the end result is," he said. "I think that we are a whole lot closer to eliminating death on the battlefield in Ukraine and Russia, and it's the overall goal."
Sign Our PetitionThe recent summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has sparked intense discussion around U.S. foreign policy, especially concerning the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. This meeting, characterized by Trump's retreat from demanding a ceasefire in favor of a broader peace agreement, highlights not only his approach to diplomacy but also deep-seated issues regarding American leadership on the global stage. The implications of this meeting resonate far beyond the immediate political landscape, reflecting a historical pattern of U.S. engagement with authoritarian regimes and raising questions about the long-term consequences of prioritizing personal diplomacy over democratic principles.
Historically, the United States has often grappled with how to balance its interests with those of authoritarian leaders. The Cold War era serves as a salient reminder of the complexities inherent in negotiating with regimes that operate outside the norms of democratic governance. The summit with Putin echoes past instances, such as the Nixon administration's outreach to China, where personal rapport was prioritized over the ideological underpinnings of democracy. Yet, the unique context of today's geopolitical climate—marked by a resurgent Russia and a paradoxical embrace of strongman politics—demands a more nuanced approach. Trump's decision to abandon the ceasefire in favor of a peace deal, which plays into Putin's hands, reflects a dangerous precedent of legitimizing authoritarian behavior at the expense of international norms and human rights.
The ramifications of this diplomatic stance extend into ongoing social struggles, particularly regarding the U.S. commitment to support democratic movements globally. The war in Ukraine is not merely a territorial conflict; it represents a struggle for self-determination and the right of a sovereign nation to exist free from aggression. By seemingly capitulating to Putin's demands, Trump undermines the very principles that many democracies have fought to uphold. This is particularly concerning for those advocating for human rights and democratic governance, as it sends a message that global challenges can be brushed aside for the sake of expediency in negotiations. The willingness to compromise on key principles in the name of achieving a peace deal risks normalizing the idea that authoritarian aggression can be appeased rather than confronted.
Moreover, Trump's behavior during the summit—his public admiration for Putin and the apparent deference shown—reflects a broader trend among certain political factions in the U.S. that seek to downplay the threats posed by authoritarian regimes. The reactions from Democratic leaders, who expressed alarm at this display of camaraderie, underscore a crucial point: the global fight against authoritarianism is not merely a diplomatic issue but a moral one. It compels us to question how leaders can prioritize national interests without undermining the values of democracy and justice. The contrast between Trump's approach and the more traditional stance of American diplomacy reveals a critical divide in how future administrations may engage with authoritarian leaders.
Educationally, this situation invites an examination of the historical context of U.S. foreign policy decisions and their implications for contemporary international relations. Engaging in discussions about the balance between security, diplomacy, and human rights can help inform public understanding of complex geopolitical issues. For those who advocate for progressive values, these conversations can serve as vital touchpoints for critiquing policies that favor authoritarian engagement over principled foreign relations. By emphasizing the importance of supporting democratic movements and holding authoritarian leaders accountable, advocates can articulate a vision for a foreign policy that aligns with the values of justice and equality.
In conclusion, the fallout from Trump's summit with Putin is emblematic of deeper issues within U.S. foreign policy, particularly in how it engages with authoritarian regimes. The implications of forgoing a ceasefire in favor of a peace deal reveal the complexities of diplomacy and the potential dangers of legitimizing aggressive behavior. As social struggles for democracy and human rights continue to unfold, the need for a principled approach to foreign policy becomes increasingly urgent. Engaging in these discussions provides an opportunity to advocate for a foreign policy that prioritizes democratic values and justice, challenging the notion that realpolitik can ever truly replace the ideals of liberty and self-determination.
The recent diplomatic engagement between President Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin has raised profound questions about America's role in the international arena, particularly concerning the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Analyzing the intricacies of this summit reveals not just the shortcomings of Trump's approach to foreign policy, but also the broader implications of his stance on global democratic principles. Historically, the United States has positioned itself as a defender of democracy and a counterweight to authoritarian regimes. Trump's apparent readiness to accommodate Putin raises concerns about the erosion of this critical role and the potential consequences for Ukraine, Europe, and the global order.
At the heart of this diplomatic episode lies the struggle for a coherent and principled foreign policy. The United States has a long-standing commitment to support Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, particularly following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014. Trump's decision to drop demands for a ceasefire in favor of negotiating a peace agreement aligned with Putin's interests reflects a troubling departure from this commitment. This shift not only undermines Ukraine's position in the conflict but also sends a message to authoritarian leaders worldwide that the U.S. may prioritize transactional diplomacy over democratic values. As Americans, we must scrutinize this approach and advocate for a foreign policy that upholds human rights and international law, rather than succumbing to the allure of expedient deals.
The implications of Trump's diplomacy cannot be overstated. By aligning himself with Putin, Trump risks emboldening not only Russia but also other nations that may seek to challenge the established international order. The perception that the U.S. is willing to compromise on democratic principles for the sake of a quick resolution undermines the credibility of American leadership on the world stage. It is crucial for Americans to engage in discussions about the importance of maintaining a firm stance against authoritarianism, emphasizing that genuine peace cannot be achieved through appeasement. This dialogue can serve as a powerful tool in countering narratives that seek to diminish the significance of democratic values in foreign policy.
To effectively address these challenges, Americans must actively participate in advocating for a more principled foreign policy. This can be done through grassroots movements, contacting elected officials, and supporting organizations that promote democracy and human rights globally. Engaging in conversations that highlight the importance of a consistent U.S. stance on international conflicts, particularly those involving authoritarian regimes, is vital for fostering a politically aware and active citizenry. Additionally, educating ourselves and others about the historical context of U.S.-Russia relations, the implications of foreign policy decisions, and the significance of supporting allies like Ukraine can help build a foundation for informed advocacy.
Furthermore, it is essential to emphasize the interconnectedness of global politics and the domestic implications of foreign policy decisions. The actions taken by the U.S. in international conflicts affect not only the immediate regions involved but also resonate within our own borders. As Americans, we must recognize that the decline of democratic values abroad can have dire consequences for our own democracy. By fostering a narrative that links foreign policy with the preservation of democratic institutions at home, we can galvanize support for a more robust and principled approach to international relations.
In conclusion, the recent diplomatic episode involving Trump and Putin underscores the crucial need for a reevaluation of U.S. foreign policy in relation to authoritarian regimes. The challenges posed by such engagements demand that Americans become more active participants in the discourse surrounding democracy and international relations. By advocating for a principled approach that prioritizes human rights and democratic values, we can help ensure that the United States remains a beacon of hope for those fighting for freedom and justice worldwide. It is not enough to critique the failures of leadership; we must also take meaningful action to shape a future that aligns with our collective ideals and aspirations.
Analyzing the recent developments regarding President Trump's approach to diplomacy with Russia, particularly in relation to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, presents an opportunity to consider collective actions that can be taken to advocate for a more principled foreign policy. Here’s a detailed list of ideas on what we can do personally to influence this situation positively:
### Personal Actions to Take
1. **Educate Yourself and Others**: - Understand the complexities of the Ukraine conflict and the implications of U.S.-Russia relations. Share informative resources such as articles, books, and documentaries with friends and family. - Example Resources: - "Red Notice" by Bill Browder (for insights into Putin's regime) - "Ukraine: What Everyone Needs to Know" by Serhii Plokhy
2. **Engage in Local Activism**: - Attend local peace rallies or forums discussing foreign policy and international peace. - Example: Look for events organized by local peace organizations or universities.
3. **Support Advocacy Organizations**: - Donate to or volunteer with organizations advocating for peace and diplomacy, such as: - **Peace Action**: (Website: peaceaction.org) - **The International Crisis Group**: (Website: crisisgroup.org)
4. **Petition for Peace**: - Start or sign petitions advocating for a ceasefire and diplomatic solutions in Ukraine. - Example Online Petitions: - **Change.org**: Search for petitions related to Ukraine and U.S. foreign policy. - **MoveOn.org**: Participate in existing campaigns or create your own.
5. **Contact Elected Officials**: - Write to your congressional representatives urging them to prioritize peace initiatives and diplomatic solutions. - Action Steps: - Find your representatives through [govtrack.us](https://www.govtrack.us/) - Example Contacts: - **Senator Chuck Schumer** (D-NY) - Email: schumer.senate.gov/contact/email-chuck - Mailing Address: 780 Third Avenue, Suite 2301, New York, NY 10017 - **Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez** (D-NY) - Email: ocasiocortez.house.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 144-36 38th Avenue, Suite 200, Flushing, NY 11354
6. **Use Social Media Effectively**: - Utilize platforms to raise awareness about the importance of a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict. Share informative posts, articles, and personal insights. - Example Hashtags: #PeaceForUkraine #DiplomacyOverWar
7. **Participate in Letter Writing Campaigns**: - Join organizations that organize letter-writing campaigns to elected officials advocating for peace. - Example Group: **Everytown for Gun Safety** also conducts campaigns for broader social issues.
8. **Engage with Local Media**: - Write op-eds or letters to the editor in local newspapers expressing your views on the need for a strong, peace-focused U.S. foreign policy. - Example: Research local newspapers’ contact information for submissions.
9. **Host Discussions**: - Organize or host discussion groups to talk about U.S. foreign policy, the Ukraine conflict, and the importance of diplomacy. - Engage local experts or professors to facilitate discussions.
### What to Say
When communicating with elected officials or in your community, consider the following points to articulate your stance:
- **Emphasize the Importance of Diplomacy**: "Given the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, I urge you to support diplomatic efforts that focus on a comprehensive peace agreement rather than temporary ceasefires." - **Highlight Humanitarian Concerns**: "The human toll of prolonged conflict is devastating. We must prioritize peace to prevent further suffering."
- **Call for Accountability**: "As a concerned constituent, I believe it is vital for our leaders to hold foreign adversaries accountable while also seeking peaceful resolutions."
- **Encourage Transparency and Engagement**: "I call on you to engage with allies and international organizations to foster a collaborative approach to peace in Ukraine."
By taking these steps, we can collectively encourage a more robust and principled approach to foreign policy that prioritizes peace and diplomacy over hostility. Each action, no matter how small, contributes to a larger movement for change.