Trump's Putin, Zelensky talks chiefly served Russian aims
These developments have prompted calls among world leaders to end the conflict. On the surface, United States President Donald Trump's meetings with both the Ukrainian and Russian leaders suggest a balanced approach.
In reality, however, Trump's actions primarily benefit Russia.
After the recent meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, Trump declared that their summit had been 'very useful.' When asked how he would rate the meeting on a scale of one to 10, the president declared the meeting 'was a 10 in the sense we got along great.'
While Trump and Putin may have hit it off, the issue with such an assessment is that it failed to address the underlying reason for the meeting: Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In this regard, the meeting was far more useful for Putin and Russia than Ukraine and its allies.
Putin managed to stoke tensions, and potentially divisions, among Ukraine's principal supporters by not including Ukraine in the summit. No other countries participated in the summit.
This format caused considerable consternation in Ukraine, where it was feared that Trump would make an agreement without Ukrainian consent, as well as in Europe, where Russian aggression and revisionism is a more direct threat.
Prior to Trump assuming power for a second time in 2025, Ukraine benefited from a largely united front among NATO and the European Union. This unity has declined over the last several months, and the Alaska summit reinforced this decline to Russia's benefit.
Putin and his negotiators managed to obtain a major concession from Trump at the summit as Trump renounced his own recent calls for a ceasefire.
For Ukraine and its allies, achieving a ceasefire was a fundamental requirement for any peace negotiations in 2025. This precondition has become more significant as Russia ramps up its attacks on Ukrainian cities and civilians.
Lastly, the very nature of the Alaska meeting itself helped legitimize Russia in international opinion.
Since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russia has courted international opinion. It's been more successful than most people in Europe and North America realize, as significant portions of Asia, Africa and Latin America remain ambivalent or even support Russia in its war against Ukraine.
Nonetheless, Russia was always restrained by the condemnation it received from multiple international organizations, most notably the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.
Trump welcoming Putin on American soil, when the Russian leader is under what amounts to a de facto travel ban by the International Criminal Court, undermines these institutions' condemnations.
The benefits that Putin obtained from Trump in Alaska demanded an immediate response by Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelensky promptly arranged a White House meeting with Trump in the aftermath of the Alaskan summit. And he didn't arrive alone: European leaders accompanied him to show solidarity with Ukraine.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted the European leaders weren't on hand to prevent Trump from bullying Zelensky, as occurred during their last Oval Office meeting.
That's probably only partly true. Several European leaders — ranging from the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, to French President Emmanuel Macron — almost assuredly accompanied Zelensky to prevent Trump from forcing the Ukrainian leader into concessions that are detrimental to their interests as well.
Trump's pre-meeting social media post undoubtedly heightened their concerns. In the post, he placed the burden of peace on Zelensky and argued that Ukraine must accept the loss of Crimea and never accede to NATO.
Ukrainian officials sought to carefully orchestrate Zelensky's one-on-one Oval Office meeting with Trump. Zelensky wore a suit and delivered a letter from the Ukrainian first lady to Melania Trump.
These and other efforts aimed to stroke Trump's ego, and the president's response — in particular, agreeing with a reporter that Zelensky 'look(ed) fabulous' in a suit — suggests it was a success. The same American reporter criticized Zelensky for failing to don a suit during his ill-fated February White House visit.
Notably, Trump did not rule out a role for American soldiers in helping to maintain peace in Ukraine during the meeting. Outside observers believe an American presence in Ukraine to maintain any eventual peace is a fundamental requirement for its success.
Unfortunately, while Trump did not immediately oppose the idea, he did not make any firm commitment either. Trump's propensity to reverse course on statements that he makes at the moment, furthermore, undermines any firm takeaways from the meeting.
Any direct American involvement in Ukraine would also undermine his support among his political base. One of Trump's key campaign promises was not to involve the US in 'endless foreign wars.'
A move by Trump to deploy American soldiers to Ukraine would be politically tenuous, as fractures are already emerging among his political base over his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.
Trump's cordial meetings with Zelensky and European leaders may fuel hope among Ukraine's supporters in the coming days. But any optimism should be tempered by the damage done by Trump's meeting with Putin. Trump reportedly interrupted the meetings in Washington to call Putin.
Trump's unwillingness to make firm commitments at the meetings with Zelensky and European leaders means that Russia, on balance, has succeeded in advancing its interests to the detriment of Ukraine and the prospects for a long-term, sustainable peace.
James Horncastle is assistant professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney professor in international relations, Simon Fraser University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
7 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Ukraine war: Switzerland offers Putin ‘immunity' for peace talks
Switzerland would grant Russian President Vladimir Putin immunity if he came to the country for talks on peace in Ukraine , despite the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant, it said on Tuesday. Advertisement Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis told a press conference that, under certain circumstances, he would be allowed to set foot in Switzerland. Last year, the Swiss government defined 'the rules for granting immunity to a person under an international arrest warrant. If this person comes for a peace conference – not if they come for private reasons', Cassis said. As a member of the International Criminal Court , Switzerland would be legally obliged to arrest Putin. French President Emmanuel Macron raised the possibility of a peace summit between Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky being held in Europe , in 'a neutral country, maybe Switzerland'. Advertisement 'I'm pushing for Geneva,' he said in an interview aired earlier on Tuesday on French television.
AllAfrica
13 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Trump's Putin, Zelensky talks chiefly served Russian aims
The current phase of the war in Ukraine continues unabated into its fourth year, with grinding offences and strikes against civilian infrastructure increasingly the norm. It is, for Ukraine, arguably the most vulnerable that it has been since 2022. These developments have prompted calls among world leaders to end the conflict. On the surface, United States President Donald Trump's meetings with both the Ukrainian and Russian leaders suggest a balanced approach. In reality, however, Trump's actions primarily benefit Russia. After the recent meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, Trump declared that their summit had been 'very useful.' When asked how he would rate the meeting on a scale of one to 10, the president declared the meeting 'was a 10 in the sense we got along great.' While Trump and Putin may have hit it off, the issue with such an assessment is that it failed to address the underlying reason for the meeting: Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In this regard, the meeting was far more useful for Putin and Russia than Ukraine and its allies. Putin managed to stoke tensions, and potentially divisions, among Ukraine's principal supporters by not including Ukraine in the summit. No other countries participated in the summit. This format caused considerable consternation in Ukraine, where it was feared that Trump would make an agreement without Ukrainian consent, as well as in Europe, where Russian aggression and revisionism is a more direct threat. Prior to Trump assuming power for a second time in 2025, Ukraine benefited from a largely united front among NATO and the European Union. This unity has declined over the last several months, and the Alaska summit reinforced this decline to Russia's benefit. Putin and his negotiators managed to obtain a major concession from Trump at the summit as Trump renounced his own recent calls for a ceasefire. For Ukraine and its allies, achieving a ceasefire was a fundamental requirement for any peace negotiations in 2025. This precondition has become more significant as Russia ramps up its attacks on Ukrainian cities and civilians. Lastly, the very nature of the Alaska meeting itself helped legitimize Russia in international opinion. Since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russia has courted international opinion. It's been more successful than most people in Europe and North America realize, as significant portions of Asia, Africa and Latin America remain ambivalent or even support Russia in its war against Ukraine. Nonetheless, Russia was always restrained by the condemnation it received from multiple international organizations, most notably the United Nations and the International Criminal Court. Trump welcoming Putin on American soil, when the Russian leader is under what amounts to a de facto travel ban by the International Criminal Court, undermines these institutions' condemnations. The benefits that Putin obtained from Trump in Alaska demanded an immediate response by Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelensky promptly arranged a White House meeting with Trump in the aftermath of the Alaskan summit. And he didn't arrive alone: European leaders accompanied him to show solidarity with Ukraine. Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted the European leaders weren't on hand to prevent Trump from bullying Zelensky, as occurred during their last Oval Office meeting. That's probably only partly true. Several European leaders — ranging from the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, to French President Emmanuel Macron — almost assuredly accompanied Zelensky to prevent Trump from forcing the Ukrainian leader into concessions that are detrimental to their interests as well. Trump's pre-meeting social media post undoubtedly heightened their concerns. In the post, he placed the burden of peace on Zelensky and argued that Ukraine must accept the loss of Crimea and never accede to NATO. Ukrainian officials sought to carefully orchestrate Zelensky's one-on-one Oval Office meeting with Trump. Zelensky wore a suit and delivered a letter from the Ukrainian first lady to Melania Trump. These and other efforts aimed to stroke Trump's ego, and the president's response — in particular, agreeing with a reporter that Zelensky 'look(ed) fabulous' in a suit — suggests it was a success. The same American reporter criticized Zelensky for failing to don a suit during his ill-fated February White House visit. Notably, Trump did not rule out a role for American soldiers in helping to maintain peace in Ukraine during the meeting. Outside observers believe an American presence in Ukraine to maintain any eventual peace is a fundamental requirement for its success. Unfortunately, while Trump did not immediately oppose the idea, he did not make any firm commitment either. Trump's propensity to reverse course on statements that he makes at the moment, furthermore, undermines any firm takeaways from the meeting. Any direct American involvement in Ukraine would also undermine his support among his political base. One of Trump's key campaign promises was not to involve the US in 'endless foreign wars.' A move by Trump to deploy American soldiers to Ukraine would be politically tenuous, as fractures are already emerging among his political base over his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Trump's cordial meetings with Zelensky and European leaders may fuel hope among Ukraine's supporters in the coming days. But any optimism should be tempered by the damage done by Trump's meeting with Putin. Trump reportedly interrupted the meetings in Washington to call Putin. Trump's unwillingness to make firm commitments at the meetings with Zelensky and European leaders means that Russia, on balance, has succeeded in advancing its interests to the detriment of Ukraine and the prospects for a long-term, sustainable peace. James Horncastle is assistant professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney professor in international relations, Simon Fraser University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
AllAfrica
14 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Malaysia's bow to Moscow looking like a Faustian pact
Two weeks ago, Malaysian King Sultan Ibrahim Iskander embarked on his maiden trip to Russia at President Vladimir Putin's invitation, marking the first such visit by a sitting monarch ever since Malaysia formally established diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union in April 1967. His six-day exploratory tour of Moscow and Kazan came just three months after Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim had visited the Russian capital to drum up support for Malaysia's BRICS accession bid, strengthen people-to-people cooperation, boost direct air connectivity and attract greater foreign direct investment (FDI) from the Kremlin. Kuala Lumpur currently chairs the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) bloc with which dialogue partner Russia has, in recent years, sought to bolster both commercial as well as cross-cultural engagement given its declining influence across Central Asia and the South Caucasus. If anything, the Russian elite considers Southeast Asia an extension of Moscow's 'near abroad' or 'backyard.' The region's predominantly semi-authoritarian regimes feel a certain kinship with wartime Russia and, in particular, Putin, who they view as an anti-imperialist crusader trying to cut the collective West down to size. Yet for Anwar – a lifelong Islamist zealot garbed in reformist wares – the Hamas-led massacre on October 7, 2023, that left 1200 innocent Israeli civilians dead was a cue to reorient Malaysia towards Russia, China and BRICS writ large. Notwithstanding the roughly 1.3 million Russian speakers living in Israel as dual citizens and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's personal friendship with Putin, the Kremlin adopted an overtly pro-Palestine posture following Operation Al-Aqsa Flood to appease Muslim-majority states and give wind to his multipolarity push. As a guest of honour at the 2024 Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) in Vladivostok, Anwar used the platform to malign Western countries for their wilful blindness vis-à-vis the ongoing Gaza conflict while moving heaven and earth to rally the international community behind Ukraine. India's Minister of External Affairs S. Jaishankar cast similar aspersions on the EU's selective outrage and rank hypocrisy regarding the Russo-Ukrainian war when he argued how 'Europe's problems are the world's problems, but the world's problems are not Europe's problems' at the 17th GLOBSEC Forum in Bratislava, Slovakia. Russia, for its part, is more than happy to let this narrative of 'Western double standards' take root in the Global South, not least because it thrusts disaffected developing nations into the Greater Eurasian nexus. Beyond its unwillingness to denounce Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine or participate in Group of Seven (G7) sanctions against the Kremlin, Malaysia has allowed Moscow to obfuscate and stonewall its way out of accountability for the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17) in mid-2014 that killed all 298 passengers on board. Having been involved in frontline Malaysian politics for nearly four decades, it is no secret that Anwar has the king's ear and likely convinced him to pay an official courtesy call on Putin earlier this month. What remains unclear, however, is the horse trading that went on behind the scenes and, more importantly, the concessions Malaysia's most influential figure likely made during his 'dream' in-person meeting with the Russian autocrat. Although Anwar continues to eat, breathe and sleep the Palestinian cause as a means of deflecting attention away from his own domestic failings and growing legitimacy crisis, the embattled 78-year-old appears equally preoccupied with extracting whatever political mileage he can from Malaysia's ever-closer alignment with BRICS. The fact that neighboring Indonesia expeditiously joined the multilateral organization, seen by many as an emerging anti-US and Western bulwark in global affairs, as something of a wild card on January 1, 2025, suggests another ASEAN state – three of which have already been accorded 'partner' status – may well be the next in line. Malaysia, in line with Anwar's intense lobbying efforts, fancies itself a frontrunner for full-fledged BRICS membership. Over the last 12 months alone, the Malaysian leader visited China and India to secure the two Asian giants' blessings for his nation's BRICS candidacy while also attending the group's latest summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Meanwhile and for the sake of ensuring Malaysia is on the best possible terms with most, if not all, existing BRICS members and participants. In that direction Anwar backed Iran's right to self-defense when its nuclear facilities and main metropolises were bombed by Israel in early June, endorsed South Africa's International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case against the Jewish state and has shied away from criticizing the UAE for its outsized role in foisting the world's worst humanitarian crises upon both Sudan and Yemen. That said, and despite creating the illusion of a highly democratized, consensus-based admission procedure, Russia does have the final say on welcoming new entrants into the BRICS fold. It is worth recalling that the landmark enlargement wave at the start of 2024 after a nearly 14-year hiatus occurred during the Kremlin's rotating presidency whereas the concept of 'BRICS+' was agreed upon at the coalition's 16th annual forum in Kazan. Mindful of how significant a foreign affairs win Malaysia's fast-track entry into the non-Western alliance would be for its increasingly unpopular prime minister, Putin will doubtless put forward steep demands to sign off on its full-fledged BRICS induction – chief among which is burying the MH17 affair once and for all. This is precisely what he might have been angling for by hosting the Malaysian king who can, with a stroke of a pen, issue a royal pardon that would effectively absolve the Kremlin of any wrongdoing and neuter recent unfavorable rulings brought forth by International Civilian Aviation Organisation (ICAO) as well as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). In light of Azerbaijan Airlines (AZAL) 8243 plane crash en route to Grozny, Russia, late last year at the hands of Russian military forces and the subsequent Russo-Azeri diplomatic fallout over Putin showing no remorse for the 38 casualties or their families, Moscow can ill-afford to have two almost identical open wounds fester simultaneously. As such and owing to the lawsuit Baku has filed against Russia, there is a real sense of urgency on the latter's part to at least wish away the MH17 controversy and along with it any related public relations damage or legal obligation to compensate the victims' immediate relatives. Should Kuala Lumpur work hand in glove with Moscow to sweep this incident away by royal decree or otherwise, Europe will have no choice but to treat the Malaysian government as a hostile entity for practically condoning the murder of 196 Dutch nationals. Whereas China and India have been justifiably singled out for keeping Russia's economy afloat via their record consumption of heavily discounted Russian oil, the West must not lose sight of middle powers' skullduggery when it comes to replenishing the Kremlin's war chest. After all, wealthy Russians are not transiting through Beijing or New Delhi en route to Europe, nor are they snapping up luxury properties and stashing away their ill-gotten gains in Mumbai or Shanghai. Rather, the likes of Thailand, Turkey, the UAE and Kazakhstan bear some degree of culpability for sheltering Putin's subjects and insulating them from feeling the squeeze of unprecedented Western sanctions. As far as Malaysia is concerned, the EU does have a nuclear option at its disposal to strong-arm the country's Russophile upper echelons into reversing course. It would make eminently good sense for Brussels to issue Malaysia the same de facto 'with us or against us' ultimatum that Tbilisi found itself on the receiving end of over democratic backsliding and the ruling Georgian Dream party's borderline fetish for Kremlin-inspired governance. Much like Georgia, Malaysia is an Annex II state whose citizens enjoy short-term visa-free access to the Schengen Area and are bound to rise up against their Kremlin-friendly government if this privilege is yanked by the EU. Likewise, the UK can threaten to reimpose entry requirements on Malaysians – many of whom are enrolled in full-time education at British universities due to the 'Commonwealth' connection and will not want their visiting parents to face additional red tape. Unless smaller, albeit equally rogue and malevolent actors relative to China or India are made an example of, there is no silver bullet or panacea for achieving lasting peace in Ukraine. By giving Malaysia a pass for flaunting its camaraderie with Putin's Russia and globally-designated terrorist organizations such as Hamas, the West risks pushing the Southeast Asian nation and other like-minded Global South 'fence-sitters' further into emerging anti-Western blocs.
