Skip to main content

Putin’s victory, Trump’s illusion: Alaska summit shows how peace slips further away

By Dr. Manoj Kumar Mishra* 
The much-hyped Alaska Summit, touted by US President Donald Trump as a diplomatic breakthrough and a step toward peace between Russia and Ukraine, has fizzled out into yet another round of military confrontation. Trump arrived at the meeting without a concrete proposal or a clear pathway to peace, leaving Russian President Vladimir Putin to set both the tone and the contours of the dialogue.
Putin’s appearance in the United States after years of diplomatic estrangement following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine was itself a symbolic victory. He was able to turn the stage to his advantage by evoking Alaska’s Russian past, casting the US-Russia relationship as one rooted in shared geography and history. For Trump, the event served more as a face-saving gesture than as an actual peace initiative, while Putin emerged as the true beneficiary—able to sidestep sanctions pressure, avoid immediate commitments to a ceasefire, and even coax a softer US stance on Moscow’s oil trade.
What could have been an opportunity to secure a temporary ceasefire instead turned into a platform for Putin’s calibrated but unrealistic vision of peace. His proposal of permanently absorbing occupied Ukrainian territories in exchange for limited concessions was presented as a pragmatic solution, but it is one Ukraine will never accept. Trump, in tacit agreement, floated the idea of a land swap, further alienating Kyiv.
With Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders absent from the table, the summit essentially became a bilateral negotiation over Ukraine’s future without Ukraine itself. Trump even went so far as to treat Putin more as a guarantor of Ukraine’s security than as its primary threat. Putin’s dominance of the diplomatic stage was evident in his post-summit warnings to Ukraine and its European allies not to disrupt the “progress” emerging from Alaska. In effect, he shifted the burden of prolonging the war onto Kyiv and its Western partners.
Humanitarian concerns barely surfaced. The fate of thousands of Ukrainian prisoners of war and civilians held by Russia was ignored. So too was the plight of deported Ukrainian children, some of whom have been placed for adoption in Russia. Instead, the only tangible outcome was talk of a possible three-way summit involving Trump, Putin, and Zelensky—something Europe has cautiously supported but Russia has flatly denied.
The hollowness of the Alaska meeting was underlined almost immediately afterward when Russia launched 85 attack drones and a ballistic missile at Ukraine, followed by further territorial gains in the east. Ukraine retaliated by targeting Russian nuclear facilities, underscoring that the war remains far from any peaceful resolution.
The United States’ inability to shape outcomes on matters of war and peace is becoming more visible. The Alaska Summit’s failure was preordained by the absence of Ukraine itself, reducing Zelensky to an afterthought even as he tried to project optimism by claiming to have had a “long and substantive” conversation with Trump.
For Trump, the summit was more about burnishing his image as a peacemaker than about serious diplomacy. But the reality is starker: Washington’s leverage in global peace and security has waned. Trump’s hardline trade wars, particularly against China, eventually gave way to retreat and accommodation, and his Russia policy is following a similar trajectory.
Sanctions have not weakened Moscow’s resolve, and the summit only allowed Putin to cloak aggression in the guise of diplomacy. What remains is an illusion of progress, with future summits dangled as promises even as bombs continue to fall.
The Alaska meeting revealed not the path to peace, but the widening gap between American rhetoric and geopolitical realities. Russia has managed to project itself as the partner willing to talk, while the United States struggles to maintain credibility as a power capable of brokering peace. If anything, the war looks increasingly irreversible, while peace remains as elusive as ever.
---
*Senior Lecturer in Political Science, SVM Autonomous College, Jagatsinghpur, Odisha

Comments

TRENDING

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

CFA flags ‘welfare retreat’ in Union Budget 2026–27, alleges corporate bias

By Jag Jivan  The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has sharply criticised the Union Budget 2026–27 , calling it a “budget sans kartavya” that weakens public welfare while favouring private corporations, even as inequality, climate risks and social distress deepen across the country.

Four women lead the way among Tamil Nadu’s Muslim change-makers

By Syed Ali Mujtaba*  A report published by Awaz–The Voice (ATV), a news platform, highlights 10 Muslim change-makers in Tamil Nadu, among whom four are women. These individuals are driving social change through education, the arts, conservation, and activism. Representing diverse fields ranging from environmental protection and literature to political engagement and education, they are working to improve society across the state.

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra   We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”

'Big blow to crores of farmers’: Opposition mounts against US–India trade deal

By A Representative   Farmers’ organisations and political groups have sharply criticised the emerging contours of the US–India trade agreement, warning that it could severely undermine Indian agriculture, depress farm incomes and open the doors to genetically modified (GM) food imports in violation of domestic regulatory safeguards.

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram   The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman*  In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

Trade pacts with EU, US raise alarms over farmers, MSMEs and policy space

By A Representative   A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.

Samyukt Kisan Morcha raises concerns over ‘corporate bias’ in seed Bill

By A Representative   The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) has released a statement raising ten questions to Union Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan regarding the proposed Seed Bill 2025, alleging that the legislation is biased in favour of large multinational and domestic seed corporations and does not adequately safeguard farmers’ interests.