By Markuss Kozlinskis and Lee Allen
Summit in Alaska: A Red Carpet for Putin
The red carpet extended from the runway to the podium with F-22 Raptors flanking on either side. Air Force One was parked on the tarmac of Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson with the beautiful Chugach Mountains visible in the background. President Trump waited on the red carpet and greeted Vladimir Putin, with the two men walking side by side to the podium. Putin had received a welcome befitting that of a leader of a global superpower.
Just two years ago, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Putin. South Africa, being party to the ICC, was at the center of a diplomatic debate: would President Putin be arrested if he attended the BRICS Summit? The Russian President did not test the diplomatic waters then, but last week he was on American soil and on equal footing. Although the United States is not a party to the ICC, a more traditional American foreign policy would have avoided hosting Putin, at least not without Russian concessions. President Trump is far from being a traditional president, having shown a willingness to meet world leaders regardless of their relations with the West, especially if there is a potential deal to be made. The Alaska summit was emblematic of the U.S.’s changing role in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. While previous public diplomacy emphasized a rules-based order led by the U.S., with the outcome of the conflict being determined by Ukrainian agency, the Trump administration is rebranding America’s role in the world as that of a mediator, “pursuing peace,” with President Trump’s dealmaking ability at the forefront. Lacking a concrete outcome, we are left to discuss circumstances and expectations. The Guardian reported initial announcements from the U.S., which suggested a bilateral summit between the U.S. and Russia, followed by a trilateral summit that would also include Ukraine. One White House official reported to the New York Post that the Alaska summit would not take place if Putin refused to meet with Zelensky.[1] With Russia’s immediate pushback on these reports and the lack of a Putin-Zelensky meeting, the U.S. position ahead of the summit looked confused at best.
Regarding the summit itself, meetings were cut short in favor of a brief joint press conference,[2] with both heads of state offering little of substance in their own communicative style. Putin relied on his typical historical allegory, and Trump emphasized personal relations and business opportunities. With little public outcome and coordination with European allies, the summit did little to further European security. Damage was done in the form of reintroducing Russia to the world stage and causing a scramble among European partners to find consensus on red lines and their negotiating position.[3]
Baltic and Nordic Voices caution against compromise with Moscow
Although they were not present in Alaska, the Baltic states made their voices heard regarding U.S. engagements with Russia. In an op-ed on the Financial Times’s front page, the foreign ministers of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia warned against entertaining any territorial “swap” with Moscow that was likely to be discussed at the summit.[4] In bringing up their own history, the Baltic ministers stressed how even “temporary” Russian occupations bring mass killings, deportations, and Russification, leading to the systematic destruction of the nation.[5]
Following the Trump-Putin Summit, the Baltic states together with their Nordic partners issued a joint Nordic-Baltic 8 (NB8) statement underlining that “No decisions on Ukraine without Ukraine, and no decisions on Europe without Europe.”[6] In response to the Kremlin’s frequent claims of the necessity to address the “root causes” of the conflict, the NB8 clearly declared that “Russia’s aggression and imperialist ambitions are the root causes of this war”.[7] The statement further emphasized that only credible security guarantees, together with a ceasefire and firm transatlantic commitments, can secure a just and lasting peace.[8] Subsequently, whether through the NB8 or the “coalition of the willing,” the Baltic states could be considered to project their perspective into the Washington discussions by coordinating closely with European allies who were present at the White House Summit.
The European-White House Summit
Three days after the Alaska summit, on August 18, Trump continued the peace talks with Zelensky and other European leaders. In a bilateral Trump-Zelensky meeting at the Oval Office, another crisis was averted. In comparison to the confrontational encounter in February, both leaders now had a rather cordial discussion regarding Trump’s Alaska visit and future peace prospects. The bilateral meeting was shortly followed by the European-White House summit, where Zelensky was joined by the leaders of Finland, France, Germany, the UK, Italy, as well as heads of NATO and the EU, subsequently representing a united European front in support of a just and lasting peace for Ukraine.
Overall, the Ukraine talks in Washington were largely focused on: 1) the pursuit of the ceasefire/peace deal; 2) U.S. involvement in providing the security guarantees for Ukraine; and 3) potential direct meetings between Zelensky and Putin.
Firstly, reminiscent of the Trump-Putin summit, the U.S. president reiterated the necessity to pursue a peace deal, rather than a temporary ceasefire, subsequently aligning with Moscow’s view on the matter. While the European leaders, particularly German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron, emphasized that without an immediate ceasefire, negotiations for lasting peace would be unimaginable, Trump was largely dismissive of such a view. As noted by Ian Bremmer, President of Eurasia Group, Trump’s changed preference from ceasefire to peace deal can be considered a strategic win for Putin – by now insisting on a comprehensive peace agreement that is much harder to achieve, Trump has made it easier for Moscow to shift blame onto Ukraine if peace talks stall.[9] Notably, while an immediate ceasefire has been one of the key Ukrainian asks in the past, Zelensky no longer expressed such a demand in Washington, possibly reflecting the difficult trade-offs Kyiv has to manage to prevent fallout with its American counterparts again.
Secondly, Trump, for the first time, mentioned active U.S. involvement in providing security guarantees to Ukraine. While Trump noted that Europe would still be the “first line of defence” of Ukraine and did not specify the extent of American military assistance, such a measure, unimaginable months ago, was certainly welcomed by Ukraine and European Allies. As anticipated by Daniel Fried, Atlantic Council expert and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, the security guarantees to Ukraine would likely rest on a ‘coalition of the willing’ led by the UK and France, prepared to station forces on the ground, and backed by U.S. intelligence, logistics, and air power.[10]
Thirdly, following the summit, Trump, via Truth Social, proposed a bilateral Putin-Zelensky meeting take place, followed by a trilateral where the U.S. president would join them. While Zelensky has been open to meeting Putin in the past, possibly to prove that Russia is not interested in stopping the aggression, the Kremlin has so far rejected the idea of the two leaders meeting. In response to Trump’s proposal, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov has only said that it may be “worthwhile” to “explore the possibility of raising the level of representatives” from the Russian and Ukrainian delegations in negotiations.[11]
In conclusion, while no written proposals or agreements were produced, the Ukraine talks in Washington could be considered an opportunity to revitalize the peace initiative by marking general outlines for possible future peace talks. Notably, as caught in the hot mic exchange between Trump and Macron, the U.S. president may genuinely believe that Putin “wants to make a deal” with him, contrary to the view of most European allies. Such European skepticism may indeed be warranted. After all, the Kremlin shows no willingness to halt its aggression and insists on addressing the ‘root causes’ of the conflict. With that, genuine progress toward peace remains difficult to envision under these conditions.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/10/confusion-over-the-alaska-summit-shows-vladimir-putin-still-calls-the-shots?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/17/us/politics/trump-putin-summit-papers-hotel.html
[3] https://theweek.com/world-news/putin-trump-russia-ukraine-summit?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[4] https://www.ft.com/content/7c571467-87b1-4771-9b49-a7f3766a6bcf
[5] https://www.ft.com/content/7c571467-87b1-4771-9b49-a7f3766a6bcf
[6] https://www.mk.gov.lv/en/article/joint-statement-leaders-nordic-baltic-eight-ukraine-august-16-2025?utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
[7] https://www.mk.gov.lv/en/article/joint-statement-leaders-nordic-baltic-eight-ukraine-august-16-2025?utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
[8] https://www.mk.gov.lv/en/article/joint-statement-leaders-nordic-baltic-eight-ukraine-august-16-2025?utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
[9] https://www.gzeromedia.com/quick-take/zelensky-trump-and-nato-a-united-front-on-ukraine
[10] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/fastthinking/was-trumps-summit-with-zelenskyy-and-european-leaders-a-turning-point-for-russias-war-in-ukraine/
[11] https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cev28rvzlv1t