War or peace – at Alaska and beyond

When Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022, much of the world thought that the war would end in weeks, if not days. However, this conflict has been ongoing for three and a half years.

Several serious attempts were made by different parties to bring an end to costly hostilities, but to no avail. Now, the most high-profile and determined effort has been underway, conducted by US President Donald Trump since he re-entered the White House in January 2025. The Alaska summit between President Putin of Russia and him on 15 August was perhaps the most significant diplomatic initiative of the Trump presidency to resolve the Russia-Ukraine war. Will it succeed in bringing peace to the combatants and Europe, thus easing the international political and economic situation?

In the days leading to the summit in Alaska, optimists and pessimists were divided. The latter wrote it off as a publicity stunt and dismissed it as an attempt by Trump to buttress his credentials as a keen aspirant for the Nobel Peace Prize. Optimists, on the other hand, hoped that a ceasefire agreement would be achieved, ignoring the fact that both Ukraine and European governments had signalled to Washington clearly that it must refrain from negotiating on their behalf. The middle-of-the-roaders, like this author, predicted that the Alaska summit would secure “some progress.” This is what seems to have happened.

Alaska outcome

Both leaders made positive remarks about their discussions at the summit, which lasted about three hours. The pomp and pageantry, the atmospherics and the body language, and the in-depth conversations in the presence of select advisers – all indicated the thoroughness of preparations and seriousness of purpose. What is even more important, the leaders did not reveal the contents or contours of their agreement or understanding, while pointing out that they agreed on many issues and disagreed on others. This was an imperative for Trump, for he was obliged to first debrief President Zelensky of Ukraine and other European leaders before sharing some outcome details with the public at large.

In this light, a close look at the formal remarks by the two leaders before the media at Anchorage is advisable, even if they did not take questions from the press.

President Putin made the longer statement. He stressed that the Russian and American leaders have had “good direct contact.” He praised Trump for his effort “to get to the crux of the matter.” The reference here was to Putin’s basic view that the fundamental threats to Russian security – or the root causes of the war – must be addressed. He conceded Trump’s point that “naturally, the security of Ukraine should be considered as well.” Putin added, “Naturally, we are prepared to work on that.”

Putin seemed concerned about the future conduct of European governments and Ukraine. They, he hoped, would perceive the Alaska outcome “constructively and… won’t throw a wrench in the works.” He called the agreements reached in Alaska as “the starting point” for the solution of the Ukraine issue and the return of the US and Russia to “pragmatic relations.” In the last paragraph, he cleverly confirmed Trump’s oft-repeated claim that had the latter been the President in 2022, the war would not have broken out. Nothing would have pleased Trump more than listening to this from President Putin at a formal media conference watched by half of the world!

Trump’s remarks were shorter. He concluded them by stressing that the killings – “1000s of people a week” – must be stopped and added, “President Putin wants to see that as much as I do.” His overall take on Alaska was presented in the first paragraph. It was “a very productive meeting,” he said, adding: “There were many points that we agreed on, most of them. I would say, a couple of big ones that we haven’t quite gotten there, but we have made some headway. So, there is no deal until there is a deal.” (Domain experts are busy deciphering the meaning and implications of these calculated and deliberately vague observations.)

Assessment

In this age of 24×7 television and social media, instantaneous judgements on world events can be treacherous. Ignoring months of quiet negotiations, weeks of careful preparations, and the utter complexity of issues, many observers quickly jumped to the conclusion that the summit was a failure because it did not produce a ceasefire agreement. A critic dismissed Alaska as “a beautifully choreographed non-event.”

Such pronouncements are misleading. Critics must have been taken by surprise by what followed.

First, Zelensky, following a detailed debrief by Trump, sent out a positive and supportive tweet, reaffirming Ukraine's “readiness to work with maximum effort to achieve peace.” He expressed support for Trump’s proposal for a trilateral meeting between Ukraine, the US, and Russia, and he also announced that he would visit Washington to meet Trump on 18 August. Several European leaders will accompany him in a gesture of solidarity and as insurance against a possible fiasco like the previous Trump-Zelensky encounter in the White House.

Second, the European leaders of ‘the Coalition of the Willing’ articulated support for the US efforts, expressed themselves in favour of “a trilateral summit with European support,” and stressed the need for “ironclad security guarantees” for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Third, many other nations have commented on the Alaska outcome in a positive vein. India’s statement was remarkably crisp and clear. Welcoming the Trump-Putin summit, it stated, “Their leadership in the pursuit of peace is highly commendable.” It reflected India’s appreciation for the progress made at the summit, and stressed New Delhi’s view that the way forward can only be through “dialogue and diplomacy.”

The Alaska summit has started something significant and valuable – a serious effort to resolve the Ukraine conflict. However, a positive end of the process is, by no means, guaranteed. The road ahead will be difficult and torturous. But if the parties concerned are willing to undertake a fair ‘give and take’, this is a good time for them to go for it.

The US President is working for international peace and his nation’s interests. To claim that his sole motivation is to win the Nobel Peace Prize is to betray one’s bias and an inadequate understanding of a highly complex and complicated matter.

(Rajiv Bhatia is a Distinguished Fellow at Gateway House, a former Indian Ambassador with extensive diplomatic experience in regional and global groupings, and the author of three books on Indian foreign policy.)