See today also here, here, and here. Yesterday here and the day before the summit here
by Malek Dudakov
[REGNUM] The Alaska summit ended in a unique way. Donald Trump's opponents in the US immediately called the summit a defeat for the White House. Republicans point to a major diplomatic success in negotiations with Moscow. And representatives of the European and Ukrainian lobbies were completely at a loss.
From the start, Trump's team tried to temper expectations for the event. But just in case, Trump brought a very large delegation to Alaska, including the military-diplomatic wing of his administration, as well as the financial and trade wing. This was done in order to be able to quickly conclude a big deal.
However, following the summit, it became clear that even more preliminary work is needed before it can be said that Russian-American relations are normalizing.
From the point of view of the dramaturgy of the process, the American side tried to conduct the summit in Alaska as beautifully as possible.
The two presidential jets landed opposite each other, with a red carpet laid out between them. The Russian and American presidents met in the middle, shook hands several times, and left in Trump's armored Cadillac.
Negotiations and a final press conference then took place, after which the leaders of the two countries said goodbye.
Initially, a one-on-one dialogue between the two presidents was planned, but the White House was forced to abandon this format. Probably, memories of the previous summit in Helsinki in 2018, after which Trump was accused of collusion with Russia, played a role.
The negotiations were held in a three-on-three format, with the American delegation including Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff. The former is responsible for the general foreign policy agenda, while the latter, as a special envoy, deals specifically with Ukraine.
After that, there were supposed to be meetings in an expanded format and a lunch and dinner, but they did not take place. Trump quite transparently hinted at the reasons for changing the format of the event. He hoped to achieve a breakthrough on the Ukrainian track, after which it would be possible to conduct a dialogue on the economy, sanctions and mutual cooperation projects.
However, the US President mentioned several small issues and one big one in the context of the conflict in Ukraine that have not yet been fully resolved.
For now, we can only guess what these topics were. But we can assume that the big question concerns territorial exchanges. It is not for nothing that this topic has been actively discussed in the Western press recently.
Small questions could concern some private moments - for example, the letter of the US First Lady Melania, dedicated to the fate of Ukrainian children. Although work in the context of family reunification is already being actively carried out by working groups from Russia and Ukraine.
In the run-up to the summit, Trump’s team clearly hoped to show strength in negotiations with Russia. There were leaks to the press about the possibility of new sanctions. And a B-2 bomber, which had recently been used to attack targets in Iran, was flying over an air base in Alaska.
However, in general, it cannot be said that the US negotiating position was very firm. Trump himself showed haste - he wanted to achieve results on the Ukrainian track as quickly as possible.
The White House openly acknowledged the low effectiveness of anti-Russian sanctions. Following the summit, there were no statements about increasing sanctions pressure on Moscow.
This can already be interpreted as an indicator that there was no failure in the negotiations. Although at the same time we did not see any progress in the issue of easing sanctions.
As for the topic of Ukraine, Trump’s comments about the need to force Volodymyr Zelensky to reach an agreement with Russia were symbolic here.
Trump continues to hedge risks and try to present himself as an arbiter of the negotiation process. At the same time, it is the Ukrainian lobby that appears both as those who will have to agree to Russia's conditions and those who can be blamed for everything.
Trump's contacts with Kiev and European capitals will be important in the near future. All the difficult issues, territorial and otherwise, will certainly be raised here.
We can certainly see an attempt on Trump's part to increase pressure - both on the Europeans and on the Ukrainians. If the latter continue to show inability to negotiate, then Trump may well make them responsible for the inability to resolve the current conflict.
At the same time, the American president is unlikely to abandon attempts to negotiate de-escalation in Ukraine. It is important for him to appear as a “peacemaker.”
And it's not just about the Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump really wants.
He wants to show himself as the first US leader to receive this award not only because of his status or reputation, but for some real deeds. The long-standing conflict with Barack Obama also plays a role. Trump clearly considers the latter unworthy of the Nobel Prize, unlike himself, who is simply obliged to receive it this year or next.
The summit was surrounded by a "peacekeeping" atmosphere.
It is not for nothing that even at the press conference slogans like “Pursuing Peace” were shown. And Trump himself has repeatedly said that he is ready to hold such a summit precisely for the sake of the agenda of ending the conflict.
In this way, he responded in advance to criticism from his opponents, who again tried to present Trump as an agent of the Kremlin and a conduit for Russia’s interests.
On the eve of the summit, the heads of the American intelligence services appointed by Trump rolled out documents confirming the facts of falsification of data for the promotion of "Russiagate". This was an important signal to the current and retired representatives of the US intelligence community. If they try to so rabidly accuse Trump of working for Russia again, they will have a hard time.
A trial has also been launched against Obama-era intelligence officers who were at the origins of Russiagate.
And in general, the topic of “Russian interference” has long been boring for Americans. As, by the way, has the Ukrainian agenda.
Polls released before the summit showed that only a third of Americans perceive the Ukrainian conflict as affecting US national interests. At the same time, a solid majority of Republicans oppose further funding for Kyiv or the allocation of new military trenches. This gives Trump carte blanche in negotiations with Russia — any agreement will be positively received by the American electorate.
Ahead, battles are beginning over the format and venue of the next summit.
Trump's team proposes to organize it as a trilateral one, with the participation of the Ukrainian delegation. However, in this case, European hawks will immediately start asking to attend the summit. Or they will at least try to hold the event somewhere closer to Europe, in order to try to somehow influence its outcome.
In addition, questions remain about the desire of Zelensky's office to conduct real negotiations.
The US retains leverage over the Ukrainian side - for example, it can reactivate the anti-corruption track and resume audits of how American tranches were used in Kyiv. It is only necessary to have political will in Washington to use these mechanisms.
In the near future, we will likely see attempts by the Trump team to force Kyiv to fundamentally agree, for example, to the possibility of declaring a limited ceasefire in the air and at sea until the next summit.
The Ukrainian lobby will once again maneuver and try not to respond with an unequivocal refusal, but at the same time put forward counter-conditions.
However, in any case, the very fact of the activation of the negotiation process is positive. Even if it will take a lot more time to bring it to its logical conclusion.