DID Press: The meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump in Alaska was billed as one of the crucial political encounters in recent years. Many had hoped it might open a new path toward resolving the Ukraine crisis. Yet the outcome revealed something very different: the talks ended up serving the Kremlin’s strategic interests far more than Washington’s, once again underscoring Putin’s skill in stage-managing diplomacy and exploiting the weaknesses of his rivals.
From the start, Putin set the tone. His 12-hour flight across 6,000 kilometers looked like a gesture of compromise, but in reality it carried a sharp political message: he was willing to endure costs, but not to retreat. By simply showing up in Anchorage, Putin neutralized Trump’s threats of escalating pressure on Moscow and immediately seized the initiative—leaving the West on the defensive posture.
The three-hour negotiation was, in effect, a psychological exercise orchestrated by Russia. Trump described the talks as “very good” and claimed progress had been made. But when the dust settled, it was clear no substantive agreement had emerged—least of all on Ukraine’s occupied territories. Putin offered no concessions, repeating Russia’s longstanding demand that its “legitimate security concerns” be taken into account and urging the West to accept a new balance of power in Europe.
Trump, by contrast, deflected responsibility to Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders, saying the final decision on peace was theirs to make. That remark amounted to an admission of failure: the U.S. president had left Alaska empty-handed. It also sat uneasily with Trump’s bravado about his ability to “end the Ukraine war quickly” and his claims of superior negotiating power.
Analysts argue that Putin secured three major gains. First, he gained Russia precious time, easing immediate Western pressure on the battlefield. Second, by pulling Trump into an inconclusive summit, he widened rifts between the U.S. and Europe, where leaders now fear Washington may pursue a Moscow-centric deal without safeguarding European security. Third, Kremlin once again demonstrated that, even under sanctions and isolation, it can still entangle the West in its diplomatic theater.
Trump, meanwhile, not only failed to secure concessions but also appeared diminished. His insistence on consulting Zelensky and NATO leaders cast him less as a strongman and more as a hesitant intermediary. Several Western outlets noted that, in Alaska, Trump resembled a politician caught in the Kremlin’s diplomatic trap rather than a master negotiator.
Zelensky himself offered the bluntest assessment. He said Putin achieved all three of his goals: a photo-op with Trump, an escape from isolation, and a delay in sanctions. Moscow’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, mocked Western narratives about Russia’s isolation, noting that after years of predictions, the world had just watched Putin walk a red carpet in the United States.
In the end, the Alaska summit reinforced a simple truth: Russia’s strategy of patience and deception can push the West backward without firing a shot. Putin walked away with symbolic and strategic victories, while Trump left with empty words. He may have called the talks “constructive,” but the real winner in Alaska was Moscow—and the loser was Washington and its allies.
By Rahel Mousavi