PRINT AS PDF
On Friday, August 8, President Trump met with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Putin was welcomed with red carpet treatment, and despite Trump’s stated priority of achieving a ceasefire, he abandoned that objective. Instead, he embraced Russia’s position on negotiations toward a final settlement. The outcome was unmistakable: Russia “won” the summit.
Any threat of U.S. sanctions or other consequences for Russia’s ongoing aggression evaporated. Freed from restraint, Moscow can now continue military operations unchecked, bolstering its leverage to demand maximalist terms under the guise of addressing the “root causes” of the war that Russia launched without provocation. Russia even raised the price for halting hostilities, demanding Ukrainian territory it does not currently control. Worse still, President Trump appears ready to pressure Ukraine and Europe into concessions that align with Moscow’s aims.
In short, the hastily convened summit was a debacle for the United States, Europe, and Ukraine. It revealed, once again, that summitry is not about personal chemistry but about power, preparation, and leverage. Russia came to the table with clear goals: to regain recognition as a great power, escape pariah status, and advance its uncompromising demands. It achieved all three, and much more. By “converting” Trump, Russia bent U.S. policy closer to its worldview, inflicting damage that is only beginning to unfold. That damage could extend far beyond Ukraine’s sovereignty, undermining Western unity and global stability.
Summits succeed only when grounded in leverage, preparation, and clarity of purpose. Negotiators must come armed with fallback positions and contingency plans. They must expect one-sided proposals and push back with strength, knowing leverage exists only when the other side perceives the need for cooperation. Equally vital is shaping the agenda. Summits should be reserved for decisive strategic issues.
Backchannel exchanges before the meetings clarify red lines, test proposals, and prevent deadlock. The form of the outcome (a communiqué, agreement, or declaration) shapes global perception and cannot be left to improvisation. It should be largely agreed ahead of the summit. Above all, substance must outweigh rhetoric. Durable progress rests on concrete, measurable agreements painstakingly prepared in advance.
Trump, however, entered Alaska dreaming of a Nobel Peace Prize. Putin exploited that vanity, pocketed both symbolic and substantive victories, and left Trump grasping at appearances. Instead of admitting failure born of poor preparation, Trump embraced Russia’s positions to create the illusion of agreement. The costs of that “agreement” are poised to be steep. Over time, depending on the evolution of events and choices made, those costs could even become catastrophic.
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
