In the end, the ‘Don and Vlad’ show ended without a big finale.
After nearly three hours of private talks in Alaska, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin appeared like heavyweight boxers ending their match in a draw.
They proceeded to talk briefly to the millions watching with bated breath on TV but revealed no specifics of what they had discussed.
The takeaway for those in Kyiv, along with European leaders, was that the meeting concluded without a clear winner, and a ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict would not be forthcoming in the immediate future.
Putin spoke first, and seemed the happier, jauntily inviting Trump to Moscow for another meeting.
He and Trump had reached an ‘understanding,’ Putin said, as he ominously warned Europe not to ‘torpedo the nascent progress.’
Trump described the summit as ‘very productive’ but noted there were a ‘couple of quite big’ issues left unresolved. Later, he seemed more hopeful and rated the meeting a ’10/10.’
For Trump, simply bringing Putin to the discussion table marked a historic milestone and could be the beginning of a lengthy journey towards peace, perhaps leading to a Nobel Prize.
However, analysts on the Kremlin’s side viewed it as Putin successfully achieving his primary objectives—regaining a presence on the global stage and gaining extra time for further military advancements in Ukraine.
After their nearly three-hour private session in Alaska, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin emerged as if they were heavyweight prize fighters who had battled to a deadlock.
By agreeing to the meeting Putin avoided further impending U.S. sanctions, and by then not agreeing to a ceasefire he kicked the diplomatic can down the road.
Putin’s troops are currently advancing in Ukraine, so it was always going to be to his advantage to delay Trump’s demands for a ceasefire, and seek a better deal later.
Indeed, on the eve of the summit Putin bombed Ukraine yet again with a ballistic missile, and his troops advanced six miles towards the eastern town of Dobropillia.
The starting points for the summit had never been entirely promising.
Putin wanted Ukrainian territory but the extent of his demands had been shrouded in uncertainty, due in part to apparent previous misunderstandings with Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff.
Trump was prepared for ‘land swaps’ but had agreed not to make any commitments without the approval of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was not invited. Zelensky wanted a ceasefire before any discussion on territory.
Meanwhile, European leaders wanted post-war security guarantees for Ukraine. And Putin wanted Ukraine membership of NATO ruled out, which was a diplomatic non-starter.
They proceeded to talk briefly to the millions watching with bated breath on TV but revealed no specifics of what they had discussed
However, for Ukraine, and its European allies, there was some relief that no harm was done in Alaska.
They had feared a repetition of Yalta, the 1945 conference where Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin decided the fate of European counties without them being represented at the negotiating table.
Russia occupies about one fifth of Ukraine, including large parts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, areas rich in coal and gas, and other minerals like lithium.
With Zelensky not in Alaska, he and European allies were concerned about a ‘Yalta 2,’ with Trump handing over parts of Ukraine’s territory to Putin.
Trump’s detractors had also cast him the role of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.
Chamberlain gave the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia to Hitler and then infamously claimed that he had achieved ‘peace for our time.’ The following year, the world was at war.
Trump showed in Alaska that he is no Chamberlain. Instead, he is a man with a strong dislike for people trying to pull the wool over his eyes.
Increasingly, that appears to be his view of Putin.
Last month, Trump lamented: ‘We get a lot of bulls*** thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He’s very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.’
With Zelensky not in Alaska, he and European allies were concerned about a ‘Yalta 2,’ with Trump handing over parts of Ukraine’s territory to Putin
In Alaska, there was also no repeat of the 2018 meeting in Helsinki when Trump was widely criticized for siding with Putin over his own intelligence agencies, denying that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election.
And, unlike Helsinki, Trump took the decision not to meet Putin alone .
Instead, in Alaska the meeting was a ‘3X3’ with both leaders bringing two trusted advisers.
In Trump’s case he used a diplomatic ‘good cop’ and ‘bad cop’. The ‘good cop’ was Witkoff, who has built up a rapport with Putin over several long meetings.
The ‘bad cop’ was Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has in the past savaged Putin as a ‘thug and gangster.’
‘Bad cop’ Marco Rubio speaks with Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov
Trump and Putin stand in front of Air Force One after their handshake in Alaska on Friday
In one sense, just being in Alaska was a victory for Putin, a man responsible for launching the largest land war in Europe since 1945.
He is, officially, an internationally wanted war crimes suspect after a warrant for his arrest was issued by the International Criminal Court in March 2023.
The summit allowed him to become the first Russian leader to set foot in Alaska since Tsar Alexander II sold it to the U.S. in 1867.
Trump effectively brought him in from a three-and-a-half year exile as a global pariah.
Despite the challenges the summit had begun in a hopeful atmosphere.
On the tarmac at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Trump’s Air Force One sat next to Putin’s so-called ‘Flying Kremlin,’ an Ilyushin Il-96-300PU aircraft.
Trump disembarked first and played the perfect host, standing at the end of an ultra-long red carpet as Putin descended the steps and walked briskly toward him.
The American leader applauded Putin on his walk and then deployed what body language experts call a ‘clasp and yank’ handshake – gripping Putin’s hand and pulling the Russian toward him.
Putin resisted the power play and stood his ground as they locked hands for 20 seconds, with Putin telling Trump he had come to ‘help.’
As they walked up another stretch of red carpet, past two parked U.S. jets, there were pats on the back and a few pleasantries.
Putin paused and gazed up as there was a flyby of a B2 bomber and four F-35 fighter jets. He looked impressed.
The two men then stood on a stage over the words ‘Alaska 2025.’
Trump’s carefully choreographed welcome was upended when an American reporter yelled at Putin: ‘Will you stop killing civilians?
Putin shrugged pointed to his ear as if couldn’t hear.
They then headed toward Trumps armored limousine, ‘The Beast.’
Putin appeared to chuckle as he got in the back with Trump for what was likely to be their only one-on-one encounter.
After they arrived at the venue for the meeting they sat with advisers for photographs.
Putin again appeared rattled as a reporter yelled: ‘Mr Putin, will you commit to a ceasefire? Will you commit to not killing any more civilians?’
He cupped his hands to his face and appeared to mouth ‘I can’t hear you.’
Ahead of the meeting, Putin sought to smooth Trump’s ego, praising his ‘energetic and sincere efforts to end the conflict.’
On top of that, he offered a carrot, that a deal could lead to talks on ‘strategic offensive arms control,” a clear reference to a potential nuclear arms deal.
Russia and the United States have by far the biggest arsenals of nuclear weapons in the world.
The last remaining pillar of nuclear arms control between the two countries is the New Strategic Arms Reduction (New START) treaty, which expires in February.
Ahead of the meeting, Putin sought to smooth Trump’s ego, praising his ‘energetic and sincere efforts to end the conflict
But, as Trump found out, pushing Putin into a ceasefire will be an uphill struggle.
Not all wars end at the negotiating table. According to research by the Hague Center for Strategic Studies between 1946 and 2005 only 30 percent of wars between countries ended in a ceasefire, and only 16 percent in a peace agreement.
It found 21 percent ended in a decisive victory, and 33 percent in some other form like a stalemate or ongoing low-level conflict.
When there was a negotiated settlement in 50 percent of hose cases the counties were at war again within five years.
