KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Russia’s reintegration: The Alaska Summit ends Russia’s isolation, with Putin’s red-carpet reception in the U.S. marking a shift from pariah to partner, highlighting a fractured Western alliance.
- Western disunity: The U.S.’s bilateral approach with Russia bypasses Europe and Ukraine, reshaping European security far from its capitals and exposing internal Western divisions.
- U.S. disavowal: Trump’s strategy absolves the U.S. of responsibility for the Ukraine war, positioning it as a mediator while shifting pressure onto European and Ukrainian leaders.
- Comprehensive peace over ceasefire: The summit prioritises a comprehensive peace deal over a temporary truce, diverging from Europe’s preference and aligning with Russia’s demand to address conflict roots.
- Ukraine and Europe’s burden: Kyiv and European capitals now bear responsibility for peace efforts, with their cooperation critical to the war’s outcome and Ukraine’s global standing.
- U.S.–Russia strategic ambitions: Beyond Ukraine, the summit opens doors for collaboration on global issues, with Trump aiming to counter China by wooing Russia, potentially weakening BRICS+ were this strategy to succeed, which is extremely unlikely.
- Uncertain future: Despite optimism, Ukraine’s fate and European-Russian security remain fragile, with Alaska heralding a new global order but not resolving the conflict.
The summit between the American and Russian presidents on 15 August 2025 in Alaska, poised at the crossroads of Asia and America and with no scintilla of Europe, marks a profound pivot in global affairs. Alaska, once Russian soil, carries deep historical and symbolic weight. This meeting, set against the backdrop of a war waged neither in America nor Asia but in Europe, signals five transformative developments in the international order.
1. Russia’s return from (attempted) pariah to partner
The sight of Vladimir Putin treading a red carpet laid by American soldiers in Alaska signals a dramatic reversal of Russia’s previously attempted ostracism. The West (i.e., NATO member countries and further Anglo-Saxon allies) once stood united against Moscow since the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Yet, Alaska reveals a fractured West. Under Donald Trump’s leadership, the U.S. pursues bilateral engagement with Russia, sidelining European and Ukrainian voices. Europe’s security architecture and Ukraine’s fate are shaped far from their capitals, at a symbolic frontier of geographical superpower proximity. Washington’s recalibration of priorities leaves Europe to grapple with decisions it did not shape, while Russian leadership transitions from persona non grata in Europe to a valued interlocutor in America, revealing a crucial rupture within the West.
The temptation to reduce this to personalities, i.e., Trump versus Biden, is misguided. The war in Ukraine, not yet decisively won by one side but undeniably lost by the other, drives this shift. Had the prior U.S. strategy of crippling Russia through sanctions and isolation succeeded, restoring a modicum of American hegemony for some further amount of time, no red carpet would have been unfurled in front of Russia’s president—while Donald J. Trump’s 2024 electoral victory would not have been certain. Instead, the failure of that approach brought new realities to the table. One of them is the red carpet and the attempt to resolve the Ukraine conundrum bilaterally, for starters. The other would have been further NATO–Russia escalation towards a direct, and potentially nuclear, confrontation. For now, the latter has been averted.
2. America’s disavowal of war responsibility
In Alaska, Putin explicitly echoed Trump’s assertion that the Ukraine war “would never have happened under a Trump presidency,” a claim that visibly pleased the American leader. Beyond political posturing, this underscores Trump’s strategy to absolve the U.S. of responsibility for the conflict’s trajectory. By framing the summit as a step towards peace, Washington shifts the onus onto Europe and Ukraine to align with the U.S.–Russia framework or bear the consequences. This manoeuvre positions the U.S. as an arbiter rather than a protagonist, preserving its strategic flexibility while exposing allies to pressure. It also frees resources for America’s pivot to Asia and its fraught Middle East engagements.
3. A pivot to comprehensive peace rather than a ceasefire and a frozen conflict
Until Alaska, the West’s mantra (espoused even by Trump up until the summit) was an essentially unconditional, immediate ceasefire, deferring a full peace agreement to an uncertain future and freezing the conflict. Russia, however, insisted on a peace agreement rather than a temporary ceasefire, an agreement that would address the conflict’s “root causes” according to the Russian side, i.e. those outlined in its December 2021 proposals addressed to the USA and to NATO countries. Alaska marks a departure: both leaders prioritised a comprehensive peace deal over a mere truce. This shift undermines the Ukrainian and European preference for a temporary halt, leaving them in a precarious position as Russia presses on militarily until a final resolution is secured, with U.S. acquiescence.
4. Shifting the burden to Ukraine and Europe
Post-Alaska, the responsibility for peace lies with Kyiv and European capitals. Both Trump and Putin expressed hope that Ukraine and Europe would cooperate, not obstruct to the framework signalled in Alaska. This differs from mere U.S. disavowal (as under #2 above), as it places the success or failure of peace efforts squarely on their shoulders. Ukraine, the war’s primary victim, faces a stark dilemma: its leadership’s stance in a conflict already deemed lost will shape not only its outcome but also Ukraine’s future global standing.
5. A broader U.S.–Russia agenda—with China in the background
Beyond Ukraine, Alaska opens avenues for U.S.–Russia collaboration on global conflicts, pending nuclear treaties, and economic opportunities, priorities Trump holds dear. Notably, Trump seeks to woo Russia to counter China’s rising influence, a move of dubious prospects, but an explicitly declared one nonetheless. In an interview with Fox News after the summit, Trump essentially admitted that the approach to Russia is part of a broader strategy to manage Chinese influence, describing Russia and China as natural strategic competitors which the previous US leadership unwisely brought closer together.
Despite the dubious prospects for success of this strategy, which is based on highly problematic premises, Trump spilled the beans concerning his ambition to drive a wedge between Russia and China. This would weaken the BRICS+ (i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, along with new members such as the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Iran), which collectively are already economically stronger than the G7 (the U.S., Canada, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan) in terms of purchasing power parity. Realistic or not (spoiler alert: not), this American ambition to co-opt Russia over and against China is now explicitly stated, with all that this implies for those states that have remained committed to isolating Russia from the international system.
An uncertain horizon
Despite the optimism in Alaska, uncertainty looms—especially for Ukraine. The war rages on European soil, and Kyiv’s stance, alongside Europe’s, will ultimately determine its outcome. The fragile balance of European-Russian security risks further strain, with potential further flashpoints in Kaliningrad, the Baltic and Gulf of Finland, Belarus, Moldova, and the Black Sea, should things go awry in the old continent. It is truly the case with peace that it is “now or never”.
Alaska, as a strategic milestone of restoring diplomacy, does not end the conflict but heralds a new chapter in global order; albeit one where Ukraine’s riddle remains unresolved for the time being.
* Sotiris Mitralexis holds a doctorate in political science and international relations; he works at University College London as a research fellow.