The Alaska summit was a success. The challenge is to make it last

This is the moment when the US has to stick to a course of normalization with Russia no matter what the EU and Kiev want

Do not expect Western mainstream media, NATO-EU Europe’s politicians, or the Zelensky regime and its surrogates to admit it, but there is no doubt that the Alaska summit between the Russian and American presidents was a success. Not a breakthrough either, but clearly also more than an “it’s-good-they’re-at-least-talking” event.

This was not comparable to the Geneva meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and then US President Joe Biden in 2021, which was doomed to fail due to the Biden administration’s hubristic intransigence.

Fundamentally, both sides – no, not only one – have scored what Western pundits love to call “wins”: The US has shown the EU-NATO Europeans that it and it alone decides when and how it talks to Russia and with what aims. The European vassals find this hard to grasp because it’s an application of genuine sovereignty, something they don’t have or want anymore. Russia, for its part, has shown that it can negotiate while the fighting continues and that it is under no legal or moral obligation – or any practical pressure – to stop fighting before negotiations show results it finds satisfying.

The fact that we know so little – at this point at least – about the specific, detailed content of the summit talks and their outcomes is, actually, a sign of seriousness. That is how diplomacy worth the name works: calmly, confidentially, and patiently taking the time to achieve a decent, robust result.

Read more

In that context, US President Donald Trump’s explicit refusal to make public what points of disagreement remain and have prevented a breakthrough for now is a very good sign: Clearly, he believes that they can be cleared up in the near future and, thus, deserve discretion.

Yet we do have a few hints allowing for some plausible guessing about the summit’s vibe: Not surprisingly, both leaders made no secret of their respect and even guarded sympathy for each other. That is – and has always been – a good thing, too. But in and of itself that cannot carry an agreement about Ukraine or a broader policy of normalization (or perhaps even a new détente, if we are all very lucky). For that, both Trump and Putin are too serious about adhering to national interests.

More tellingly, immediately after the meeting, Trump used a Fox News interview to state three important things. He confirmed that there was “much progress,” acknowledged that the Russian president wants peace, and told Zelensky “to make a deal.” When Putin, at a short press conference, warned Brussels and Kiev not to try to sabotage the talks, Trump did not contradict the Russian leader.

The commemorative events accompanying the summit carried more than one message. Publicly honoring the American-Russian (then Soviet) alliance of World War Two obviously implied that the two countries then cooperated intensely across a deep ideological divide, which, today, does not even exist anymore.

But arguably, there was a second, subtle message here: Another – if often unjustly “forgotten” (in the words of historian Rana Mitter) – ally of World War Two was, after all, China. In that sense, Putin’s deliberate and repeated invocations of the memory of Washington-Moscow cooperation was also yet another signal that Russia would not be available for any “reverse Kissinger” fantasies of splitting the Moscow-Beijing partnership.

Read more

By now, Trump has had phone conversations with Kiev, as well as EU capitals. There, too, we know little. Yet it is interesting to note that nothing we have heard about these conversations indicates another change of mind on Trump’s side. For now at least, the American president seems to leave little hope to European bellicists and the regime in Kiev that he will turn against Moscow again. There are reports that Trump may have shifted his position toward that of Russia, preferring talks about peace to the Ukrainian demand to focus on only a ceasefire first.

This makes sense, especially since they and the mainstream media aligned with them cannot stop trying to lecture Trump on, in essence, how gullible they consider him. It is to be hoped that the US president has had enough of Zelensky, Bolton, the New York Times and co. telling him publicly that he is a fool about to be duped by the big bad Russians. The adequate punishment for these offensive inanities is to make triple sure their authors find themselves entirely irrelevant.

This is the single most important question about the future of what has been successfully begun (or really, publicly continued) at the Alaska summit. Russia has been exceedingly consistent and is giving no sign that it intends to become less predictable. But the West has been fractious and volatile. This is the moment when Washington has to stick to a course of normalization with Moscow regardless of what its European clients and the Ukrainian regime want. Ironically, not listening much to them, if need be, is best for their people as well.