Unspoken layers of Alaska’s summit

(MENAFN) The highly anticipated meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska ended with warmth in tone but few concrete outcomes. Despite the friendly atmosphere, there was no signed deal, a scheduled lunch was canceled, and the subsequent press conference provided little clarity on what had actually been achieved.

Neither side has shared detailed information about the discussions. What is known is that both leaders appeared to align on most aspects of a possible peace framework, though some unresolved issues remain. A potential preliminary truce was reportedly touched upon, but territorial arrangements were left off the table.

Washington is still hoping to bring Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky into the process through a three-way summit, though no timeline has been set. Putin even quipped, “next time in Moscow?” which drew a smile, but Trump avoided the suggestion, remarking that a visit would provoke fierce criticism.

The lack of transparency surrounding the talks can be interpreted in two ways. Either little progress was made, or both governments have chosen to keep any breakthroughs secret to avoid interference from outside actors. In either case, both presidents appeared satisfied with the outcome. For Trump, the summit meant stalling a looming trade dispute with India and China, which broader sanctions on Russia might have triggered. For Putin, it reinforced the argument that piecemeal ceasefires are inadequate, and that only a comprehensive peace treaty can resolve the conflict.

Trump’s comments following the meeting suggest that Washington has begun to adopt Moscow’s framing of the issue, moving away from the European position of “first truce, then peace.” His “difficult” conversations with European leaders contrasted sharply with what he called a “good” exchange with Putin—an indication of who came out weaker from the talks: Kiev and Brussels.

The next steps now rest with Zelensky. If Trump and Putin did agree on key points in Anchorage, the sticking issues are almost certainly the ones Ukraine and Europe resist most, particularly territorial matters. Zelensky’s choices are limited. He could flatly reject the terms, risking a rupture in relations with Washington, or more plausibly, delay by presenting an “alternative plan,” likely demanding a trilateral summit with both Putin and Trump. His reasoning is simple: Moscow refuses to engage directly with Kiev until a US-Russian framework is already in place.

The US president’s response will be decisive. With leverage over both Ukraine and Europe, Trump could push for a rapid conclusion, or let the process drag on until only a dramatic Ukrainian battlefield defeat forces change.

If a three-way meeting does materialize, Minsk would be a logical host city. Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has already extended an invitation, and all sides could easily attend. For Russia, such talks would corner Zelensky and pressure him to accept terms already settled elsewhere. For now, however, this remains speculative.

Ultimately, the Alaska summit concluded without agreements, without new dates, but also without confrontation. Both leaders left appearing content. For Trump, it marked progress in reshaping Washington’s policy toward Moscow. For Putin, it confirmed that the US president is willing to sidestep European partners and move directly toward discussing peace.

The decisive factor remains Zelensky. Trump has placed the next move in his hands, but caught between European allies and domestic politics, the Ukrainian leader may choose to stall. Whether he resists outright or hesitates for time, the risk is the same: strained ties with Washington.

The Alaska meeting was not a conclusion but a starting point—the opening chapter of what may become a prolonged and unpredictable diplomatic saga.

MENAFN18082025000045017281ID1109940402