The summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska continues to dominate headlines in British, American, and Russian newspapers.
In The Washington Post, writer Max Boot argued in his article that the summit was a “defeat” for the United States. He noted that the meeting on Friday between Trump and Putin “was not the worst, but it was not good either, except from the Kremlin’s perspective,” comparing it to previous meetings that have taken place over the past 80 years between U.S. presidents and their Russian counterparts.
He pointed out that the Alaska summit was not like the Helsinki summit in 2018 when “Trump humiliated himself and his country by accepting Putin’s assurances that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 elections, disregarding the conclusions of U.S. intelligence agencies which confirmed otherwise.”
He believed that “the best one can say about the Alaska summit is that it could have been worse.”
The writer supported this view by stating that Trump did not endorse Putin’s demand that Ukraine hand over more territory to Russia in exchange for a ceasefire, nor did the two leaders agree on easing the U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia.
However, he stated, “if the Alaska summit was not catastrophic, it was certainly a defeat,” asserting that Putin “clearly emerged victorious from this latest confrontation with an American president.”
He noted that “Putin’s victory was apparent from the start when U.S. forces rolled out the red carpet for a dictator accused by the International Criminal Court of committing war crimes in 2023, someone who cannot risk traveling to most countries for fear of arrest.”
While Putin praised Trump and stated he would never have invaded Ukraine if Trump were president, the writer questioned, “Why has Putin intensified his drone and missile attacks since Trump was inaugurated?”
He viewed that Putin “successfully deceived” Trump after delaying sanctions on Russia that he had threatened to impose prior to the summit, and that the two presidents did not agree on a ceasefire.
Trump’s declaration that he backed down from his demand for a ceasefire, and his agreement with Putin to move directly to negotiations for a “peace agreement that would end the war,” was interpreted by the writer as “a relief for the Russian president to halt his fierce attacks against Ukraine.”
He believed that Trump’s hint, “the president who has been inconsistent in this war,” of offering U.S. security guarantees to Ukraine as part of a peace settlement, would represent a significant victory for Kyiv if it came to fruition.
Looking at Trump’s inconsistent approach to the war in Ukraine, it is too early to feel despair. Trump hinted to European leaders after the summit about his willingness to offer U.S. security guarantees to Ukraine as part of a peace settlement. If true, this would be a major victory for Kyiv.
Trump claimed he agreed with Putin on many points, with a “forthcoming” meeting expected in Moscow.
In The Telegraph, retired British Army officer Richard Kemp wrote an article urging Europe to be wary of Putin who has “entrenched Russia’s position as a superpower.”
The writer asserted that the meeting between Trump and Putin “was on equal footing” because the latter’s advance in Ukraine “cannot be halted despite over three years of Western efforts.”
He stated that “although Ukrainian forces have resisted the initial Russian blitz and have fought bravely, executing strikes within Russia, Putin still believes he can withstand any blows Kyiv deals and is capable of gaining more territory, while his forces continue to advance in the resource-rich Donbas region, a key military axis for Russia.”
He indicated that Putin “would prefer not to continue fighting for Donbas if he could obtain it by other means,” informing Trump that “the war could end if Ukraine withdrew 30 percent of Donetsk that his forces have not yet occupied.”
However, Zelensky would be “reluctant” to agree to Putin’s demand, stating that the voluntary concession of any Ukrainian territory would require a constitutional amendment, according to the article.
The writer noted that Zelensky must “balance that against his assessment of how capable Ukrainian forces are to hold their ground if the war continues, and the potential costs of that.”
He elaborated, “This evaluation must include how long the West, which is watching for the possibility of achieving peace, will continue to support the Ukrainian defense efforts, and to what extent Ukraine can be effective on its own.”
The writer noted that Putin “did not offer anything in return.” He viewed that a ceasefire before the “agreement” that Putin wants does not concern him, while “the ceasefire, which is a priority for the West, was not taken seriously” in Alaska.
He stated that “despite the military flaws that have become evident since the beginning of the war, Russia’s strength should not be underestimated,” adding that “advanced Western technologies and military approaches are not sufficient to defeat it.”
“Russia has learned the lessons of modern warfare and has adapted its forces and strategies to deal with drone technology and other battlefield innovations in ways that the West has not matched,” the writer remarked.
He pointed out that Russia continues to maintain impressive levels of weapon production, supplemented by supplies from Iran, North Korea, and China. Meanwhile, the West has “failed to keep up with that, or has not been willing to do so.”
He expressed that the war will continue unless Zelensky agrees to Putin’s demands, while “Europeans have remained passive spectators to the fate of Ukraine— and their own.”
In Russia, Elena Davlikanova wrote an article in The Moscow Times titled “Why Is It Difficult for Putin to End the War in Ukraine?”
The writer stated that the summit, which did not bring Ukraine closer to a lasting peace, resulted in “a coordinated return of Russia from its years-long diplomatic isolation.”
She viewed that “Putin’s strategic goal from the beginning was not to annex Ukrainian territory, but rather to reestablish Russia’s status as a global power and a dominant authority in Europe.”
However, she noted that “it is difficult for Russia to act as a superpower with a modest economy comparable to Italy’s. Thus, the last refuge is the display of force and its nuclear arsenal.”
In this context, the welcoming of President Putin by the American president in Alaska, and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov wearing a shirt with a Soviet motif, has served the Kremlin’s main goal well. Today, the portrayal of Russia as a global power in a world shaped by great power competition has returned to serious political discourse, the writer indicated.
She discussed “another important factor fueling the war is the West’s reluctance to impose and fully enforce strict sanctions on Russia, following the invasion and annexation of Crimea, which has given the Kremlin time to redirect its trade.” She noted that Russian export revenues now exceed the levels of 2015, despite international sanctions.
As a result, “the Russian economy has adapted and has only begun to slow down now after three years of unsustainable growth propped up by government spending, and it can withstand for a while before collapsing,” according to the writer, who believes that “secondary sanctions on countries that trade with Russia and declining oil prices are the last refuge to ensure peace.”
She pointed out that “another obstacle to ending the war lies in the financial interests of those who have amassed wealth from the military-industrial complex and from restructuring the economy during wartime, creating a class of winners.”
