Analysis: Putin's wins leave Trump with hard choices
The question now is whether Trump secured any moderate gains or planted seeds for Ukraine's future security if there's an eventual peace deal with Russia that were not immediately obvious after Friday's summit.
And he's left with some searing strategic questions.
Despite Trump's claim to have made 'a lot of progress' and that the summit was a '10 out of 10,' all signs point to a huge win for the Russian autocrat.
Trump's lavish stage production of Putin's arrival Friday, with near-simultaneous exits from presidential jets and red-carpet strolls, provided some image rehabilitation for a leader who is a pariah in the rest of the West and who is accused of war crimes in Ukraine.
And by the end of their meeting, Trump had offered a massive concession to his visitor by adopting the Russian position that peace moves should concentrate on a final peace deal — which will likely take months or years to negotiate — rather than a ceasefire to halt the Russian offensive now. As CNN's Nick Paton Walsh pointed out, that just gives Putin more time to grind down Ukraine.
Most importantly, Trump has, at least for now, backed away from threats to impose tough new sanctions on Russia and expand secondary sanctions on the nations that buy its oil and therefore bankroll its war. He'd threatened such measures by a deadline that expired last week out of frustration with Putin's intransigence and a growing belief the Russian leader was 'tapping' him along.
This leverage may have brought Putin to Alaska. But Trump seems to have relaxed it for little in return. 'Because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that now,' Trump said in an interview with Fox News after the summit.
The meeting began with a B-2 stealth bomber and F-22 fighters roaring overhead in a dramatic moment of US superpower signaling.
But Putin one-upped that symbolism by greeting Trump with the words 'Good afternoon, dear neighbor,' as he leveraged the summit's location in Alaska to imply that the two countries had important and immediate mutual interests that should not be disrupted by a distant war in Europe.
For Ukrainians and their European allies — who were shut out of the meeting and whom Trump briefed afterward —there was at least a moment of relief that Trump didn't sell Kyiv out. The fact that a US-Russia land swap plan didn't emerge from Alaska is a win for Europe's emergency pre-summit diplomacy.
Still, Trump hinted that he will pile pressure on Ukraine's leader when they meet at the White House on Monday. It's 'now up to President Zelensky to get it done,' Trump told Fox News in the friendly post-summit interview, after refusing to answer questions with Putin in what had been billed as a joint press conference.
Before the summit, Trump obliterated careful efforts by his staff to lower expectations when he told Fox, 'I won't be happy if I walk away without some form of a ceasefire.'
The failure to get there is important.
Russia is happy to commit to a detailed peace process with interminable negotiations that would allow it to continue fighting — including in its increasingly successful summer offensive — while it talks. But Ukrainians are desperate for relief from years of Russian drone and missile attacks on civilians as a generation bleeds out on World War I-style battlefields. Peace talks without a ceasefire will leave it open to Russian or US pressure.
Trump's zeal to work for peace in Ukraine is commendable, even if his repeated public requests for a Nobel Peace Prize raise questions about his ultimate motives. And one upside of the summit is that the US and Russia — the countries with the biggest nuclear arsenals — are talking again.
But the underlying premise of Trump's peacemaking is that the force of his personality and his supposedly unique status as the world's greatest dealmaker can end wars. That myth is looking very ragged after his long flight home from Alaska.
And by falling short of his own expectations in the Alaska summit, Trump left himself with some tough calculations about what to do next.
► Does he revert to his previous attempts to pressure Ukraine in search of an imposed peace that would validate Putin's illegal invasion and legitimize the idea that states can rewrite international borders, thereby reversing a foundation of the post-World War II-era?
► Or as the dust settles, and he seeks to repair damage to his prestige, does he revert to US pressure and sanctions to try to reset Russian calculations? He at least left open the possibility of sticks rather than carrots in his Fox interview, saying: 'I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don't have to think about that right now.'
► Alternatively, Trump could commit to the Russian vision of talks on a final peace agreement. History shows that this would be neither quick nor honored by the Russians over the long term. He's hoping for a three-way summit between Putin, Zelensky and himself. That would satisfy his craving for spectacle and big made-for-TV events. But after Friday's evidence that Russia doesn't want to end the war, it's hard to see how it would create breakthroughs.
► Another possibility is that Trump simply gets discouraged or bored with the details and drudgery of a long-term peace process that lacks big, quick wins he can celebrate with his supporters.
'A large part of (Trump) is all about style. There's not a lot of real enjoyment of getting into the substance of things,' Jim Townsend, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO policy who is now affiliated with the Center for New American Security, said before the summit. 'He likes the meringue on top. And I think that's how you can be manipulated.'
Trump's style-before-substance strategy clearly backfired in Alaska. Putin appeared far more prepared as Trump winged it. In retrospect, it's hard to see what the Russian president offered to US envoy Steve Witkoff in the Kremlin that convinced the administration that the Alaska talks were a good idea.
And Russia is clearly playing on Trump's desire for photo-op moments in the expectation that it can keep him engaged while offering few other concessions.
Trump may remain the best hope for peace in Ukraine. He can speak directly to Putin, unlike Ukraine or its European allies. Ultimately, US power will be needed to guarantee Ukrainian security, since Europeans lack the capacity to do it alone. And the US retains the capability to hurt Russia and Putin with direct and secondary sanctions.
But Trump has to want to do it. And for now he seems back under Putin's spell.
The Russian leader's transparent manipulation of the US president and Trump's credulity will worry Ukraine. On Fox, Trump said Putin praised his second term, saying the US was 'as hot as a pistol' and he had previously thought the US was 'dead.'
Putin also publicly reinforced Trump's talking point that the invasion three years ago would 'never have happened' if he had been president. 'I'm quite sure that it would indeed be so. I can confirm that,' said Putin.
Trump told Fox's Sean Hannity that he was 'so happy' to hear validation from Putin and also that the Russian leader had reinforced another one of his false claims, telling him that 'you can't have a great democracy with mail-in voting.' That a US president would take such testimony at face value from a totalitarian strongman is mind-boggling — even more so in the light of US intelligence agency assessments that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump win.
Ultimately, events in Alaska drove a hole through a White House claim in a recent statement that Trump is 'the President of Peace.' Trump has touted interventions that cooled hostilities in standoffs between India and Pakistan; Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo; Thailand and Cambodia; and Armenia and Azerbaijan to argue he's forging peace around the globe at an extraordinary clip.
'I seem to have an ability to end them,' Trump said on Fox of these conflicts.
He does deserve credit for effectively using US influence in these efforts, including with the unique cudgel of US trade benefits. He has saved lives, even if the deals are often less comprehensive than meets the eye.
But his failure so far to end the Ukraine war that he pledged would be so easy to fix — along with US complicity in the humanitarian disaster in Gaza — means a legacy as a peacemaker and the Nobel Prize that he craves remain out of reach.
Once, he predicted he could end the Ukraine war in 24 hours. Despite his bluster, a comment on Fox shows that after Alaska, he has a better understanding of how hard it will be.
'I thought this would be the easiest of them all and it was the most difficult.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Switzerland moves to strengthen its competitiveness after US tariffs
ZURICH (Reuters) -Switzerland is intensifying efforts to strengthen its attractiveness as a business location, its government said on Wednesday, after being hit with some of the highest U.S. tariffs worldwide. Efforts will focus on regulatory relief for Swiss companies, and new rules incurring high costs for businesses could be pushed back, the government said in a statement. U.S. President Donald Trump this month imposed U.S. import tariffs of 39% on Swiss goods, though pharmaceuticals and some other sectors have so far been spared the duties. "(The government) wants to decisively press ahead with its economic policy agenda and is focusing on reducing the regulatory burden on companies," the government said. Geographical diversification and Swiss companies' access to alternative international markets should also be strengthened, the statement said. The new U.S. levies currently affect around 10% of Swiss goods exports, and could have potentially severe consequences for some companies, the government said. Switzerland does not anticipate a recession akin to the global financial crisis or the pandemic, it added. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump doesn't have to quit UNESCO again because we never lawfully rejoined
President Trump recently announced that the United States was quitting the United Nations Economic, Social, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for the third time. This is good news – UNESCO has championed gender ideology in education, discriminatory DEI policies, and the entire litany of woke doctrines. It has also worked to erase Jewish history in the Holy Land. But the administration did not need to bother with formally withdrawing from the treaty — from a constitutional perspective, the U.S. hasn't been a member at least since Trump first quit it in 2017. When Biden sought to rejoin the Paris-based agency in 2023, he neglected to seek authorization from Congress. No one made a big deal of it then, but it means that, for domestic law purposes, the U.S. never actually rejoined. This is an important point with implications for numerous international organizations, especially as the administration sets out on an agenda of U.N. reform. Membership in international organizations was not supposed to be a political revolving door. Congress authorizes membership at the outset. After the U.S. leaves, a whole new congressional authorization must be obtained by any president wishing to rejoin. Under the Constitution, the president can only bring the country into a treaty with the 'consent' of two-thirds of the Senate. That is a substantial hurdle, and deliberately so: Commitments to foreign countries can be harder to pull out of than domestic ones. They can become a way of imposing obligations on the country that are then out of reach of the democratic process. In the 20th century, presidents have often relied on the approval of a majority of both Houses instead, a dubious practice but now widely followed. When the U.S. first joined UNESCO in 1946 (and the World Health Organization in 1948), President Truman was acting pursuant a law passed by both Houses authorizing him to do so. But Congress did not reauthorize Biden's reentry to UNESCO. Instead, he treated the 1946 authorization as a lifetime membership, when in fact it was only a one-time pass. If the U.S. quit a treaty that the Senate had ratified — say the NATO treaty — then a decision to rejoin would be subject to a new requirement of advice and consent. Congressional authorization is a stand-in for Senate ratification and should be subject to the same rules. Consider a parallel case: If a president fires a senate-confirmed appointee, and he or a subsequent president wishes to return him to the same post, no one would argue that he could do so simply on the grounds that the Senate had previously confirmed him. Indeed, Andrew Jackson's Attorney General resigned from his position, and was then reappointed to it — only to be rejected by the Senate. As a statutory matter, the 1946 agreement on UNESCO allowed the president to 'accept membership' — not accept, and accept, and accept again. If a congressional authorization is good for infinite rounds of quitting and rejoining, it makes getting out of international agreements harder than getting in – exactly the opposite of what the Framers intended. The argument of perpetual authorization was invented by Jimmy Carter, who purported to rejoin the International Labor Organization in 1980 based on a 1934 authorization. President Bush neglected to seek congressional approval when he rejoined UNESCO in 2002, nearly two decades after Reagan quit. Neither instance attracted much attention, and two modern actions do not prove a constitutional rule. There is a good argument for the Trump administration having withdrawn from UNESCO as if it were a member — to avoid any doubt or subsequent quibbling. But the administration should clarify that it is 'quitting' only out of an excess of caution, and does not see the U.S. as properly joined, which is consistent with its nonpayment of any dues. To avoid abuse by future administrations, Congress should repeal the antiquated authorizations for UNESCO and WHO, which Trump also announced withdrawal from. If a subsequent president wants to rejoin, he should have to sell it to Congress on the organization's existing records, not the hopes and dreams of the 1940s.
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate Democrats launch radio ad attacking GOP over cuts to rural radio funding
The Senate Democrats' campaign arm is launching a new radio ad Wednesday attacking Republicans for slashing funding for rural radio stations as a part of more than $1 billion Republicans made in cuts to public broadcasting in their recissions package. 'Thank you for listening to your local radio station. But stations like these might not be around for long,' a narrator says in the 30-second ad, which was first shared with The Hill. 'Last month in D.C., Republican Senators cut radio funding, voting to end weather alerts, community news and our way to stay connected,' the narrator continued. 'Rural America relies on radio. But Republican politicians left us behind.' They added, 'We can't trust them to fight for us.' The ads are being aired in recognition of National Radio Day, and they're expected to run in rural stations in Alaska, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas, all of which Senate Democrats are eyeing as potential pick-up opportunities next year. 'Rural communities rely on local radio to stay connected on everything from local news to lifesaving alerts about severe weather — but Republican Senators left them behind,' Maeve Coyle, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), said in a statement. 'Republican senators will be forced to explain to their constituents why they're robbing the programs that support their communities in order to pay for a giveaway to billionaires,' she added. President Trump signed a recissions package last month, which rescinds around $9 billion Congress had previously approved for funding for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB), which helps fund NPR and PBS and its affiliates, and global aid programs. CPB is contending with more than $1 billion in cuts alone. Federal funding makes up a smaller percentage of the money NPR and PBS rely on, but rural stations have already warned it will impact them more severely since it makes up a higher proportion of their overall funding. Republicans have attacked NPR and PBS, arguing they're liberally biased and their programs push 'radical left positions,' which its leaders have pushed back on. Contending with the cuts, the CPB announced it would begin to shut down, with its president Patricia Harrison saying in a statement 'we now face the difficult reality of closing our operations.'
