The good, bad and potentially ugly of the Trump-Putin Alaska rendezvous

Sydney Morning Herald

2 days ago

So what might happen?
The good
Trump likes to take the meeting. That's his attitude in business as in politics: get face-to-face with the big fish and see where things go. He even did so with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un in his first term.
He is incredulous when people criticise him for cultivating a relationship with Putin. Of course, he talks to the Russian leader, he says. What can you achieve if no one's talking?
Even so, the US president, not known for understatement, has played down expectations for the encounter. He calls it a 'feel-out meeting', which will set the scene for a second summit with Zelensky in attendance. But first, he wants to gauge where Putin's at.
Loading
'That suggests to me that they're recognising, maybe, they've bitten off more than they want to chew,' said John Herbst, a former US ambassador to Ukraine under George W. Bush, now senior director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Centre.
He believes the summit is a misstep – not ipso facto, but because of the rhetoric in the lead-up. But it 'need not be a disaster', Herbst said.
'To me, the summit at best will show Trump going no further than he [already] is in accommodating Putin.'
The bad
There is a question, however, over who gains what out of this event. Trump's press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, confirmed it was Putin's idea to meet now, though Trump has long been open to the idea. Meeting at the US Elmendorf Air Force Base – a convenient halfway point between Moscow and Washington – has been seen by some as a Putin concession to Trump.
But Herbst said the location 'also does something which Putin likes, which is: it demonstrates that he is not a war criminal in the United States'. As does the image of the Russian leader shaking hands with an American president for the first time since 2021.
Nothing that comes of the meeting can bind Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky; he can simply say no to the suggested 'land swapping' Trump has foreshadowed. But that risks Trump washing his hands of the matter, saying 'I tried' and withdrawing US military support.
Herbst said it was a step backwards after Trump spent the past two months increasing pressure on Putin over a ceasefire and agreeing to further arms for Ukraine.
'In 24 hours, Trump went from ramping up pressure on Russia to agreeing on a summit to agreeing – against his own preference – that the summit would be a bilateral, as opposed to a summit that includes Zelensky,' he said.
'All the talk around the summit and its possible results focuses on concessions that Ukraine would be required to make. There is no reference to what Russia must do, what concessions Russia must accept to have a ceasefire.'
The ugly
Trump has been known to echo Russian talking points on Ukraine. In February, he criticised Zelensky for not holding elections (martial law was declared after Putin's invasion), and wrongly claimed the Ukrainian leader had a 4 per cent approval rating.
He has a tendency to value what he has most recently heard. There is every chance he will be endeared to some of Putin's propaganda, especially on claims about rightful territory.
'If Trump leaves there and starts to pressure Zelensky on land, that's going to be a problem,' says Herbst. 'If we hear more that Zelensky started the war, then you know that he's swallowed the line from Putin and is heading fully in that unhappy direction. I think that's possible, but not likely.'
Others are more cynical. Michael McFaul, a former US ambassador to Russia under Barack Obama, said it was unusual and dangerous to go into a high-level meeting with no idea of the outcome.
'Summits without results hurt American national interests,' he said on X. 'If Trump gets nothing out of Alaska, he will look weak. That's never in America's national interests.'