It is entirely understandable that, after such a long and bloody conflict—not to mention the ongoing genocide now entering its 'final phase'—the hastily arranged Trump–Putin summit in Alaska has caught many off guard. Public opinion in nearly every country in the world (except, tragically, Israel) is overwhelmingly anti-war. Yet the power to prolong the bloodshed rests in the hands of elites. These are the parasites who feed on war, for whom peace is unaffordable precisely because it does not generate profit.
Whether we call these kakistocrats the MIC, the MIMAC, or something else entirely—adding think tanks, the entertainment industry, assorted contractors—it makes no difference. Wars erupt and persist because of the ambitions and greed of those at the top, in direct opposition to the will of the people (we, the people; we, the Earthmen). Including the Ukrainians.
The meeting scheduled for Friday is wrapped in both inflated hope and willful ignorance of basic realities. Why now? What’s on the table? Some European officials are speculating that Witkoff also may have misunderstood or even talked past Putin on some key details. In truth, does an actual agenda even exist? Trump is not famous for his strategic thinking or even consistency. His admission that this will be merely a feel-out meeting speaks louder than his murky hints about territorial swaps or redrawn Ukrainian borders. I side with those who warn that expectations must be managed.
The meeting scheduled for Friday is wrapped in both inflated hope and willful ignorance of basic realities. Why now? What’s on the table? Some European officials are speculating that Witkoff also may have misunderstood or even talked past Putin on some key details. In truth, does an actual agenda even exist? Trump is not famous for his strategic thinking or even consistency. His admission that this will be merely a feel-out meeting speaks louder than his murky hints about territorial swaps or redrawn Ukrainian borders. I side with those who warn that expectations must be managed.
Back in February, I called Trump 'Mr. Jekyll and Dr. Hyde,' and my view hasn’t shifted. A wolf may shed its coat but not its nature. A man who not only tolerates genocide but actively supports it is not a man dedicated to peace, not even in Ukraine, where the U.S. (and NATO) badly need an exit strategy to cleanse themselves of the proxy war they initiated long before 2014.
We can parse the symbolism of the location—some even whisper about the date’s historical or religious overtones—but by the time such details are dissected, the meeting will be over. The likeliest outcome? No resolution to the Ukrainian conflict, just a neatly staged photo-op, and no binding commitments. The safest prediction is that both leaders will use the moment to flex their machismo: Trump will brag about having 'forced' Putin to the table, and on American soil no less; Putin will relish the image of walking, unafraid, into the lion’s den. One will see dominance in hosting, the other in standing on what was once 'Russian land.'
Today, Alaska serves less as territory than as a symbol—a reminder of the transactionalism that has long been the preferred ‘policy’ of imperial powers. It’s a blunt reminder that sovereignty is never eternal, that states and their borders are not immutable, and that some of the most consequential decisions are made for money/profit. In realpolitik terms, Alaska’s position under the Arctic makes it a strategic jewel: immense resources, critical sea lanes, and the next major arena for great-power rivalry. This 'feel-out' could just as easily probe the Arctic’s future as other flashpoints—Taiwan among them.
A summit without a clear agenda, without any preparations or transparency, and without genuine authority to strike a deal—especially on behalf of a third party—can be little more than limited normalization: two wartime adversaries meeting face-to-face (in this proxy war, the U.S. is fighting Russia—and losing). Perhaps that in itself is a minor cause for optimism: that dialogue is possible even in hostile conditions. But such hope must be tempered, especially against the backdrop of a crumbling nuclear order.
Frankly, I do not understand the optimism of those expecting Trump and Putin to edge toward peace in Ukraine. Trump has never said Ukraine should adopt a peaceful but neutral stance outside NATO; he has never pledged to stop selling weapons to Europe for the war—on the contrary. And even if they were to spit in their palms and shake hands, does that suddenly transform the legendary 'green table' of geopolitical carving into a cozy table for two or three? Is that our moral surrender—placing faith in 'leaders' who resolve conflicts only when it suits their ambitions, conflicts that would never exist without their own belligerence?
I will not wager on the outcome - this is about human lives. Yet it is hard to expect anything from a feel-out meeting. Least of all from a man who denies the humanity of Palestinians and nearly launched a nuclear strike on Iran in the midst of negotiations. A decent and rational person wouldn’t buy a used car from such a man, let alone entrust him with matters of war and peace.
That is why we must remain vigilant and unflinching. The world is still closer to a Third World War than to meaningful peace talks. Even if Trump sincerely wanted peace in Ukraine (he wants an exit and some gain, a doubtful premise), he lacks the backing of the U.S. establishment, not to mention the hawks in Europe who feed the military-industrial complex. These actors treat war as a golden goose, its end as a financial loss. And if one war winds down, they are looking forward to opening another front, such as Iran, Taiwan, the Caucasus, or somewhere yet unimagined.
Trump may be erratic, even unhinged, but what many miss is the larger danger: in his unpredictability, he might still make moves aimed at shattering BRICS+. On Friday, he will shortly meet with the 'letter R.' However, the world is still sleepwalking straight into darker times. Forgive me if I am not brimming with optimism or constructive blueprints for peace.
---
This article was produced by Globetrotter. Biljana Vankovska is a professor of political science and international relations at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, a member of the Transnational Foundation of Peace and Future Research (TFF) in Lund, Sweden, and the most influential public intellectual in Macedonia. She is a member of the No Cold War collective
We can parse the symbolism of the location—some even whisper about the date’s historical or religious overtones—but by the time such details are dissected, the meeting will be over. The likeliest outcome? No resolution to the Ukrainian conflict, just a neatly staged photo-op, and no binding commitments. The safest prediction is that both leaders will use the moment to flex their machismo: Trump will brag about having 'forced' Putin to the table, and on American soil no less; Putin will relish the image of walking, unafraid, into the lion’s den. One will see dominance in hosting, the other in standing on what was once 'Russian land.'
Today, Alaska serves less as territory than as a symbol—a reminder of the transactionalism that has long been the preferred ‘policy’ of imperial powers. It’s a blunt reminder that sovereignty is never eternal, that states and their borders are not immutable, and that some of the most consequential decisions are made for money/profit. In realpolitik terms, Alaska’s position under the Arctic makes it a strategic jewel: immense resources, critical sea lanes, and the next major arena for great-power rivalry. This 'feel-out' could just as easily probe the Arctic’s future as other flashpoints—Taiwan among them.
A summit without a clear agenda, without any preparations or transparency, and without genuine authority to strike a deal—especially on behalf of a third party—can be little more than limited normalization: two wartime adversaries meeting face-to-face (in this proxy war, the U.S. is fighting Russia—and losing). Perhaps that in itself is a minor cause for optimism: that dialogue is possible even in hostile conditions. But such hope must be tempered, especially against the backdrop of a crumbling nuclear order.
Frankly, I do not understand the optimism of those expecting Trump and Putin to edge toward peace in Ukraine. Trump has never said Ukraine should adopt a peaceful but neutral stance outside NATO; he has never pledged to stop selling weapons to Europe for the war—on the contrary. And even if they were to spit in their palms and shake hands, does that suddenly transform the legendary 'green table' of geopolitical carving into a cozy table for two or three? Is that our moral surrender—placing faith in 'leaders' who resolve conflicts only when it suits their ambitions, conflicts that would never exist without their own belligerence?
I will not wager on the outcome - this is about human lives. Yet it is hard to expect anything from a feel-out meeting. Least of all from a man who denies the humanity of Palestinians and nearly launched a nuclear strike on Iran in the midst of negotiations. A decent and rational person wouldn’t buy a used car from such a man, let alone entrust him with matters of war and peace.
That is why we must remain vigilant and unflinching. The world is still closer to a Third World War than to meaningful peace talks. Even if Trump sincerely wanted peace in Ukraine (he wants an exit and some gain, a doubtful premise), he lacks the backing of the U.S. establishment, not to mention the hawks in Europe who feed the military-industrial complex. These actors treat war as a golden goose, its end as a financial loss. And if one war winds down, they are looking forward to opening another front, such as Iran, Taiwan, the Caucasus, or somewhere yet unimagined.
Trump may be erratic, even unhinged, but what many miss is the larger danger: in his unpredictability, he might still make moves aimed at shattering BRICS+. On Friday, he will shortly meet with the 'letter R.' However, the world is still sleepwalking straight into darker times. Forgive me if I am not brimming with optimism or constructive blueprints for peace.
---
This article was produced by Globetrotter. Biljana Vankovska is a professor of political science and international relations at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, a member of the Transnational Foundation of Peace and Future Research (TFF) in Lund, Sweden, and the most influential public intellectual in Macedonia. She is a member of the No Cold War collective
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor