Trump opens up about summit with Putin during Sean Hannity interview

President Donald Trump’s bold sit-down with Vladimir Putin has sparked hope for peace in Ukraine. The two leaders met on Friday at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, aiming to halt the Russia-Ukraine war. Yet, with no deal inked, the question remains: Can Trump’s deal-making swagger deliver?

The Anchorage summit focused on a potential ceasefire, but no agreement was reached. Trump, in an exclusive Fox News interview with Sean Hannity, called the meeting a “10 out of 10” for the rapport he built with Putin. Personal charm aside, the lack of a concrete deal leaves the war’s endgame murky.

Trump’s optimism about progress was palpable, claiming, “We did make a lot of progress.” But when pressed on what’s blocking a ceasefire, he dodged, saying he’d “rather not” spill the beans.

This coyness suggests either strategic secrecy or a deal still too fragile to be publicized. It’s possible that Putin and Trump came close to a deal, but there are still factors that need to be nailed out with time.

Trump’s High-Stakes Diplomacy Begins

Trump’s refusal to name the ceasefire’s main obstacle raises eyebrows. He hinted that “somebody’s going to go public with it,” implying delicate negotiations are at play. For a leader who thrives on transparency, this restraint feels like a calculated move.

The summit excluded Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a notable absence. Trump insisted it’s now up to Zelenskyy and European leaders to push the peace process forward. Handing off responsibility might be pragmatic, but it risks alienating Ukraine’s frontline voice.

Putin, during a joint press conference, claimed the Russia-Ukraine war wouldn’t have happened under Trump’s watch. This flattery aligns with Trump’s narrative of strength, but it’s a convenient jab at Biden’s foreign policy.

Trump opened the door to a future trilateral meeting with Zelenskyy and Putin, saying, “I’ll be there.” His willingness to mediate is a bold flex, but the logistics of such a summit remain unclear. Can he bridge the gap between two warring leaders?

“If they’d like, I’ll be at that meeting,” Trump told Hannity, signaling flexibility but not desperation. He emphasized he doesn’t “want to be there” but wants the deal done. This balance of enthusiasm and detachment keeps his leverage intact.

Putin’s reported claim that the 2020 U.S. election was “rigged” due to mail-in voting stirred controversy. Trump quoted him saying, “You can’t have a great democracy with mail-in voting.” While this echoes MAGA talking points, it’s a distraction from the summit’s core mission.

Putin’s Respect or Strategic Play?

Trump boasted that Putin “respects our country now,” unlike under Biden. This paints Trump as restoring America’s global clout, but it’s a self-serving narrative. Respect from Putin, a master tactician, is likely more about leverage than admiration.

“I don’t want to say anything brought him,” Trump said of Putin’s motives for attending. He called Putin “a very smart guy,” suggesting mutual respect drove the talks. But smart guys don’t negotiate out of kindness—there’s always an angle.

The summit’s failure to secure a ceasefire leaves the ball in Zelenskyy’s court. Trump’s blunt advice—“make a deal”—puts pressure on Ukraine to act. Yet, without Ukraine at the table in Anchorage, this feels like diplomacy by ultimatum.

“As far as I’m concerned, there’s no deal until there’s a deal,” Trump declared. This hardline stance underscores his deal-making ethos: no partial credit, only results. It’s a risky bet when lives hang in the balance.

Trump’s rapport with Putin, while promising, isn’t a ceasefire. He rated their chemistry a perfect 10, but geopolitics isn’t a buddy comedy.

The Anchorage summit, though inconclusive, sets the stage for high-stakes diplomacy. Trump’s openness to trilateral talks and his rapport with Putin signal potential progress. But with no deal yet, the world watches to see if his deal-making bravado can end a war.