Image Source: Getty Images
One of the greatest certainties looming over the Trump-Putin bilateral in Anchorage, Alaska was that it will not be the next Yalta, the conference held in February 1945 to discuss the post war reorganization of Germany and broader Europe. Everything else was in the domain of uncertainty. Both these contrasting expectations seem to hold in the aftermath of the Trump-Putin meeting on 15 August in Anchorage. Until such time that the Trump administration makes some of the developments of his meeting with the Russian leader public, most expectations will plank them on Donald Trump’s own enunciation – “no deal, until there is a deal.” Moreover, Trump seems to have now put the onus on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to “make a deal” and is suggesting that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.”
From the start, the buildup to the Alaska Summit outgrew realistic expectations from the summit. The realization that a single meeting between Trump and Putin could resolve a prolonged conflict which is mired in disputes of sovereignty, culture, language and two very different set of aspirations as states was unrealistic to begin with. In fact, after initially threatening to impose higher tariffs on Russia and its energy buyers should the talks fail, Trump moderated his stance by underscoring his limited capability to stop the war and change Russia’s state behaviour. Yet, to convince Putin to travel to Alaska, meet and do a joint conference may have been the first step towards a dominant moment in conflict resolution, perhaps Trump’s most sought-after diplomatic feat.
From the start, the buildup to the Alaska Summit outgrew realistic expectations from the summit. The realization that a single meeting between Trump and Putin could resolve a prolonged conflict which is mired in disputes of sovereignty, culture, language and two very different set of aspirations as states was unrealistic to begin with
There are at least three priorities which have guided Trump’s efforts to mediate between Russia and Ukraine. First, is the cessation of hostilities on the ground. In the months, and especially the weeks, leading up to the Trump-Putin meeting and Steve Witkoff’s visit to Moscow to facilitate the meeting between the two leaders, Russian onslaughts have sought to create heavier casualties in Ukraine, while speeding its territorial gains on the ground. Just a day before the Alaska meeting, Russian forces continued to gain grounds in Donetsk, eastern Ukraine. As such, Putin made sure that Russia goes in to the meeting as an actor which was under no pressure to bring the war to a halt. It is indeed true that Russia may have appeared to be losing some leverage in agreeing to travel to the US for a meeting just after the secondary sanctions against Russia’s energy buyers, primarily India, were imposed.
Second, the Trump administration is intent on giving shape to a potential agreement between Russia and Ukraine and meeting Putin bilaterally is the first step in that direction. Given the daylight between the principled stances of both Russia and Ukraine on the potential resolution of the conflict, getting Russia and Ukraine in the same room without any basic guarantees from the stronger power with be akin to predicting the course of an accidentally fired munition. As such, the Trump administration’s thinking at the moment seems to be ensuring basic assurances from Moscow before any bilateral between Russia and Ukraine can be facilitated. No surprisingly then, despite the lack of any concrete outcome from the Alaska summit Trump administration is likely to sell the summit as a high – something which no other presidents could have done. Putin’s quip that the Ukraine war wouldn’t have happened if Trump was at the helm in 2022 plays conveniently into Trump’s narrative, buying enough time to meet for a few more subsequent meetings. That proposition is always a double-edged sword – it gives Russia more time for military manoeuvres in Ukraine while giving keeping the hope that a resolution is coming afloat.
The Anchorage summit between the two leaders, if not anything, may be the only hopeful moment in a long time to resolve a long drawn intractable war which has churned global alliances and partnerships in a relatively short period of time in history.
Third, Donald Trump is bullish on the idea of conflict resolution, especially from the prospects of the Russia-Ukraine war resolution becoming his most prized track record in that direction. An achievement which many think could transport his contention for the Nobel Prize, a laughable proposition by most estimations, closer to reality. Hilary Clinton, a Democrat and former presidential opponent, has promised to nominate Donald Trump for a Nobel Prize should he bring the Russia-Ukraine war to a halt on the condition that Ukraine does not have to cede any territory – one of Trump’s most daunting challenges.
The Anchorage summit between the two leaders, if not anything, may be the only hopeful moment in a long time to resolve a long drawn intractable war which has churned global alliances and partnerships in a relatively short period of time in history. In many ways, the summit also kept countries across the globe on tenterhooks, as the steps in sanctions and diplomatic pressure which could follow from Washington in the event of the failure of these talks will impact many economies and supply chains particularly in the Global South. India is at the forefront of that potential head wind with 25 percent additional tariffs imposed as part of the secondary sanctions on buyers of Russian oil. Perhaps, there is more agreed to between Putin and Trump than is made public, especially as the optics coming out of the meeting was warm and cordial. With Putin inviting Trump to Moscow for a potential next round of talk, expectations and stakes could not be higher.
This commentary originally appeared in the Economic Times.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Professor Harsh V. Pant is Vice President at Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. He is a Professor of International Relations with King's India Institute at ...
Read More +
Vivek Mishra is Deputy Director – Strategic Studies Programme at the Observer Research Foundation. His work focuses on US foreign policy, domestic politics in the US, ...
Read More +
PREV
