Prospects for Trump & Putin in Alaska
therussophile.org -- Thursday, August 14, 2025, 11:17:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–Russia Relations, Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S. Elections & Voting Rights
This post was originally published on this site
ALASKA SUMMIT: Those who hope for progress when the two leaders meet for their "feeling-out" summit are gloomy and anxious, writes Tony Kevin. But the warmongers are gloomy and anxious too.
By Tony Kevin
Special to Consortium News
There is an unusually high diversity of views among commentators with some sympathetic understanding of Russia's strategic situation and goals about what will happen in Alaska on Friday when Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump meet about among other things, the war in Ukraine.
This is a situation where prognosis is more difficult than usual.
Berletic & Sleboda Expecting Failure
The gloomiest of views are from analysts Brian Berletic and Mark Sleboda. Both look grimly at the recent experience of Trump's treachery. They believe America cannot be trusted at any level.
They fear the chaos that surrounds Trump could enable an attempted assassination of Putin on Alaskan soil and at the vulnerable moments of his plane landing or departing. There is a lot of hilly forest around Anchorage to hide assassins with handheld SAM missiles.
There is also the matter of Putin risking arrest on U.S. soil under indictment from the International Criminal Court. The U.S. does not need to be an ICC member to detain him and turn him over to The Hague court. Apparently Putin has accepted U.S. assurances that nothing will happen to him on the U.S. military base where the summit will take place.
It is somewhat relieving in fact that the meetings will take place on the U.S. base and I hope the Russian guest's top security advisers will insist on Putin's minimum engagement with media and with the populace. This is not Moscow.
Sleboda, who spends a lot of time with members of the Russian military, is worried about Putin going in blind to a meeting without proper diplomatic preparation. He has flipped his firm doctrines. The intended goals of both sides are still murky to say the least.
It is not at all clear what is actually on the agenda. Every day Trump seems to say something different about possible Russia-Ukraine land swaps as the key to peace. Russia has not indicated it is ready to do such a deal. Why would it? Russia is advancing to occupy all of the two Donbass oblasts, as Ukrainian forces' withdraw from the last bastions of Pokrovsk, Konstantinovka and finally Slavyansk and Kramatorsk. In Zaporizhie and Kherson oblasts, would the present line of military contact along the Dnieper River become a permanent border?
This would leave Zaporizhie City and Kherson City in Ukraine, with the adjacent Dnieper as the border in all four oblasts.
Russia would need to change its constitution to enable this major concession. It would only be conceivably acceptable to Russia as part of a durable total peace package which met all of Russia's other goals for Ukraine: guaranteed neutrality, no NATO presence, denazification and protection of ethnic Russians' human rights.
The Russian military could very likely be unhappy at an incomplete victory after all their sacrifices. Presumably Russia would also have to withdraw from the border security zones it has occupied in Sumy and Kharkov oblasts in the north.
Neither Berletic nor Sleboda holds out hope for this outcome. They expect the talks to fail. They are resolute that there will be no peace in Ukraine without root-and-branch regime change in Kiev for a new government ready to accept Russia as a neighbour.
As long as the Banderist poisonous ideology continues to rule in Ukraine, there can be no real peace. They expect war to continue until Russian military victory and peace terms dictated by Moscow.
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky in his usual curmudgeonly way, backed by the NATO Europeans, has in any case outright rejected this possible land swap deal.
In a videoconference with European leaders on Wednesday, Trump agreed not to "negotiate territorial issues, saying that Ukraine must discuss that directly with Russia," The Wall Street Journal reported, quoting German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who called the meeting. Trump also threatened "severe consequences" for Russia if it did not agree to an immediate ceasefire at the summit without territorial concessions, something Russia has repeatedly said it would not agree to.
Gilbert Doctorow Sees Hope
Analyst Gilbert Doctorow sees Alaska as the first stage in a phased process of approaching peace. He is the most optimistic in this group of Western independent commentators. He looks outwards from Ukraine to a wider European normalisation picture and sees hope there, as Russophobe NATO governments' support shrinks and unrest mounts at home.
Trump himself said something before Wednesday's conference with European leaders that supports Doctorow's view, calling Alaska a "feeling-out" to be followed by further meetings.
The Russians are already speaking of an early second meeting in Russia, perhaps in Vladivostok to pursue the logical theme of two Pacific military power acting like good neighbours? Improving U.S.-Russian relations appears to be one of Putin's principal goals in flying to the United States.
MacGregor & Larry Johnson -- Doubts About Trump
Both Colonel Douglas MacGregor and ex-C.I.A. analyst Larry Johnson have pointed to the difficulties of making progress in Alaska and to Trump's tendency to cave in under pressure from the spoilers who will be legion. Who in Trump's cabinet actually supports his aspirations for peace with Russia? All still inhabit the RAND mental universe of endless confrontation and containment of Russia.
Kirill Dmitriev Looks for New Bilateral Detente
On the Russian side, there is determined optimism from Kirill Dmitriev on his Twitter X page.
Dmitriev has been Putin's lead negotiator cooperating with Trump's lead negotiator Steve Witkoff. Dmitriev expressed confidence that the neoconservatives and other conflict instigators "will not be smiling" on Friday.
He emphasised the wider prospects of both leaders' aspirations beyond Ukraine, to a new bilateral detente marked by Arctic cooperation, an end to sanctions, and normalised diplomacy and commerce, possibly in a Reagan-Brezhnev model for a new U.S.-Russia detente.
Other Russian pro-Kremlin commentators write enthusiastically about the symbolic significance of Alaska as a historical model of cooperation when Russia sold Alaska to the U.S. on generous terms to forestall the British taking it by force, and supported the U.S. diplomatically in the War of Independence against Britain and the Civil War against the Confederacy.
Jeffrey Sachs' Advice for Trump
Jeffrey Sachs, talking on Monday with Glenn Diesen, offered the most balanced commentary, refusing to make a prognosis, but setting out clearly and bluntly what he would like to see happen.
He wants Trump to take courage -- something Sachs notes he's not known for -- and go forward with Putin on a calmly negotiated path towards a new detente. He wants Trump to tell Zelensky, Merz, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the European Union's top diplomat Kaja Kallas to go take a jump in the Iliamna, Alaska's largest lake.
He wants Russia's goals to be publicly endorsed by Trump: end of war, neutral Ukraine, no NATO presence, democratic elections in Ukraine to replace the undemocratic martial law rule of Zelensky. He points to the desperate desire of 80 percent of polled Ukrainians to end the war. This all should give Trump new courage.
But Sachs is not optimistic this will happen. He thinks Trump will cave in to the deep state and fanatical NATO outliers in Europe, as he has caved before.
My Own Hunches
Recalling the way Trump folded when he returned home after the initially promising summit in Helsinki in 2018 during his first term, under huge American deep state and Western media pressure that he had been tricked by Putin into betraying American interests, it is reasonable to expect similar media aggression in Anchorage.
I hope U.S. First Lady Melania Trump will go, as she might help keep things friendly with Putin and stiffen Trump's spine to go forward, as she did in Helsinki. But she can only do so much.
There are no reliable experienced diplomatic advisers around Trump. Witkoff's focus is commercial. The mindsets of U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are problematic. Trump will be drifting through the meetings. Hopefully his vice president, J.D. Vance, will support him.
The onus will be on Putin to charm and persuade the irresolute Trump into moving forward decisively and leaving good foundations from Alaska to guide a further summit meeting. Witkoff and Dmitriev will resolutely push this outcome, if it should come about.
Zelensky won't be there to throw his characteristic spanners into the works. (On a lighter note, Putin said he would only accept Zelensky's presence if Putin's key ally, Dmitry Medvedev, a hardliner on Ukraine who has recently been sparring with Trump, were there too. The mind boggles.)
The Europeans are clearly panicking in advance of the meeting and this is a good sign. They know they have no real cards, unless they have really captured Trump's mind in Wednesday's conference all. They depend absolutely on U.S. military and energy support. They can only huff and puff if Trump stands firm for peace and his self-interest desire for a Nobel Prize.
One shouldn't exclude a desperate false flag, Ukrainian atrocity, aided by MI6, on the eve of the summit to try and twist Trump's mind against Putin. But they have left it pretty late. Fingers crossed it won't happen now.
There is reason for a bit more optimism than Sachs exuded, because of Putin's capacity to achieve real diplomatic progress, while making Trump feel respected and in charge.
Tony Kevin is a former Australian senior diplomat, having served as ambassador to Cambodia and Poland, as well as being posted to Australia's embassy in Moscow. He is the author of six published books on public policy and international relations.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska has ignited a complex discourse surrounding international relations, military strategy, and the implications of leadership decisions on global peace. The atmosphere leading up to this meeting was permeated with tension, given the backdrop of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the precarious state of U.S.-Russia relations. Historical context is essential to understanding the dynamics at play; since the end of the Cold War, the relationship between these two major powers has been marked by suspicion, conflict, and a series of diplomatic failures. As we analyze this summit, it is crucial to consider how the decisions and strategies of both leaders reflect larger issues of power, militarism, and the struggle for social justice within their respective nations.
In the lead-up to the summit, a range of analysts expressed their skepticism regarding the potential for constructive outcomes. Some commentators, particularly those with a nuanced understanding of both the Russian and American political landscapes, pointed to the chaotic nature of Trump’s leadership as a significant factor in the uncertainty. Trump's erratic communication style and unpredictable policy shifts have led many to view him as a destabilizing force in international relations. This unpredictability raises questions about trust—an essential ingredient for any diplomatic engagement. Historically, trust has been a cornerstone of successful diplomacy, whether it was the arms control treaties of the Cold War or more recent agreements meant to stabilize tensions in Europe. The lack of a clear agenda for the summit, and Trump's oscillating rhetoric regarding potential land swaps in Ukraine, only exacerbates anxieties about whether meaningful dialogue can be achieved.
The implications for Ukraine are dire. The ongoing war has resulted in significant loss of life and displacement, not only for Ukrainian citizens but for countless others in the region. The notion of land swaps as a peacekeeping strategy reflects a troubling trend in international negotiations where territorial concessions are considered the primary means of resolving conflict. This approach often overlooks the fundamental rights of people living in those territories, as well as the historical grievances that fuel such conflicts. In the case of Ukraine, the desire for “denazification” and a guarantee of neutrality from NATO, as articulated by Putin, raises profound ethical questions. It begs the inquiry: who decides the legitimacy of such demands, and at what cost to the populations directly affected? It is critical for observers to recognize that peace cannot merely be negotiated through political maneuvering; it must also encompass social justice and the recognition of human rights.
Moreover, the specter of potential violence during the summit looms large, with some analysts expressing fears of an assassination attempt on Putin. While such scenarios may seem extreme, they highlight the precariousness of power in a world defined by militarism and aggression. This precariousness is not unique to the U.S.-Russia dynamic; it reflects a broader global trend where leaders operate within a volatile environment, often leading to heightened tensions and conflicts. The historical precedents of political assassinations and their consequences should serve as a stark reminder of the lengths to which states may go when faced with perceived existential threats. It is essential for citizens to understand that the ramifications of such violence extend far beyond the immediate moment, contributing to cycles of retaliation and further destabilizing regions already fraught with tension.
As we consider the broader implications of the Trump-Putin summit, it is vital to connect the dots between international politics and domestic social struggles. In both the U.S. and Russia, issues of governance, accountability, and social justice are interwoven with foreign policy decisions. The militarization of foreign policy often comes at the expense of addressing pressing social issues such as inequality, human rights abuses, and the need for sustainable development. The focus on military solutions overlooks the potential for diplomacy rooted in mutual respect and understanding—principles that could foster not only peace between nations but also contribute to social justice at home. Citizens must advocate for a foreign policy that prioritizes diplomacy and cooperation, rather than one driven by military might and power plays.
In conclusion, the Alaska summit between Trump and Putin underscores the intricate web of international diplomacy, historical context, and the pressing social struggles that define our current landscape. The skepticism surrounding the meeting is not merely about the personalities involved; it reflects deeper anxieties about the trajectory of global politics and the inherent challenges of achieving peace. As we engage in discussions about this summit and its implications, it is essential to advocate for a vision of international relations that prioritizes human dignity, justice, and the resolution of conflicts through dialogue rather than aggression. The choices made by leaders today will resonate for generations, and it is incumbent upon us to hold them accountable and demand a commitment to a more just and peaceful world.
The recent summit in Alaska between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin has provoked a spectrum of reactions among political analysts, revealing deep divisions in perspectives regarding U.S.-Russia relations. The meeting, which was expected to address critical issues such as the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, has been shrouded in uncertainty, with commentators expressing both skepticism and concern. This summit occurs in a historically charged context, where the actions and intentions of both leaders have far-reaching implications not only for their respective nations but for global stability as well.
Historically, relations between the United States and Russia have oscillated between cooperation and confrontation. The Cold War era set a precedent of mutual distrust, and despite the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many argue that foundational issues remain unresolved. The current geopolitical landscape is further complicated by the rise of nationalist sentiments and militarization in both countries. Putin's ambition to restore Russia's influence and Trump's unpredictable foreign policy create a volatile mix that raises significant questions about the sustainability of any agreements reached during the summit. Analysts like Berletic and Sleboda warn of the potential for miscalculation or even violence, underscoring the precarious nature of international diplomacy today.
As citizens of a democratic society, it is crucial for Americans to engage actively with foreign policy discussions, particularly in an era where leadership decisions can pivot dramatically from one administration to another. The stakes are high, as the potential for conflict in Eastern Europe could lead to catastrophic consequences. Therefore, it is essential for the American public to demand transparency from their leaders regarding the outcomes of such summits. This means advocating for open dialogues and forums where citizens can understand the implications of foreign policy decisions, thus fostering an informed electorate that can hold representatives accountable for their actions.
Moreover, we must recognize the role of grassroots activism in shaping foreign policy. Encouraging a culture of peace and diplomacy rather than militarism can be achieved through organized campaigns that promote dialogue between nations. For instance, supporting organizations focused on conflict resolution and international cooperation can amplify voices calling for diplomatic solutions instead of military confrontations. Engaging with community groups, participating in forums, and utilizing social media to raise awareness are all vital actions we can take to influence the narrative surrounding U.S.-Russia relations.
Finally, education plays a pivotal role in shaping public perception about global conflicts. By integrating comprehensive global history and political science courses into our education system, we can equip future generations with the knowledge necessary to navigate the complexities of international relations. This includes promoting critical thinking about the motivations behind national policies and fostering an understanding of the intricate dynamics of diplomacy. As we reflect on the Alaska summit, we must acknowledge that the path forward requires not just political action but also a commitment to education, dialogue, and a culture that prioritizes peaceful resolutions over aggression. Only then can we hope to mitigate the risks associated with the unpredictable political landscape shaped by figures like Trump and Putin.
Analyzing the dynamics surrounding the summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska, it's clear that the implications of their meeting extend well beyond the immediate political landscape. The situation calls for an engaged and informed public ready to advocate for peace and diplomacy. Here’s a detailed list of actions we can take to influence this situation positively:
### Personal Actions to Advocate for Peace and Diplomacy:
1. **Educate Yourself and Others:** - Stay informed on U.S.-Russia relations, the war in Ukraine, and international diplomacy. Share articles, books, and resources with friends and family to raise awareness.
2. **Engage in Community Discussions:** - Organize or participate in community forums or discussions about international relations and peace efforts. Encourage open dialogue on the importance of diplomacy over conflict.
3. **Support Peace Organizations:** - Donate to or volunteer with organizations focused on peacebuilding, such as the Peace and Justice Center or the International Crisis Group. These organizations often have campaigns that you can support.
4. **Petition for Diplomatic Solutions:** - Start or support petitions demanding that the U.S. government prioritize diplomacy and negotiations over military solutions. Websites like Change.org or MoveOn.org can be platforms where you can initiate petitions.
5. **Contact Your Elected Officials:** - Write to your Congressional representatives, urging them to advocate for peaceful resolutions regarding the Ukraine conflict and to support international diplomatic efforts.
### Specific Actions with Real-World Examples:
1. **Petition to Congress:** - **Example Petition:** "Support Diplomacy over Military Action in Ukraine" - **Where to Find:** Create a petition on Change.org or support existing ones that align with this stance. - **Action:** Share the petition on social media and encourage others to sign.
2. **Contacting Elected Officials:** - **Who to Write To:** - **Your U.S. Senator:** Find your senator’s contact information on [senate.gov](https://www.senate.gov) - **Your U.S. Representative:** Look them up on [house.gov](https://www.house.gov) - **Example Email Format:** - **Subject:** Urgent Call for Diplomatic Engagement in Ukraine - **Body:** ``` Dear [Senator/Representative Name],
I am writing to express my deep concern about the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the recent summit between President Trump and President Putin. I urge you to prioritize diplomatic efforts and negotiations over military solutions. It is essential that the United States leads the way in fostering peace and stability in the region.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email] ```
3. **Mailing Addresses for Officials:** - **Example U.S. Senator Mailing Address:** - [Senator's Name] - United States Senate - Washington, D.C. 20510 - **Example U.S. Representative Mailing Address:** - [Representative's Name] - United States House of Representatives - Washington, D.C. 20515
4. **Social Media Advocacy:** - Use platforms like Twitter and Facebook to raise awareness about the importance of diplomacy. Tag your elected officials and use hashtags relevant to peace and international relations.
5. **Participate in Peaceful Protests:** - Join or organize peaceful protests advocating for peace in Ukraine and against military escalation. Look for local events on platforms like Meetup or Eventbrite.
### What to Say:
- Emphasize the importance of diplomatic dialogue and the need for comprehensive peace negotiations. - Discuss the potential human costs of military conflict, advocating for a focus on humanitarian efforts and support for affected civilians. - Highlight the importance of international cooperation and the role of organizations like the United Nations in mediating conflicts.
By taking these actions, we can collectively push for a more peaceful approach to international relations and contribute to a more stable future for Ukraine and the global community.