The Alaska summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin was, by almost any measure, a significant success-even if neither side is eager to describe it in triumphalist terms. For weeks leading up to the meeting, critics predicted a futile exercise, another round of empty rhetoric that would simply mask the irreconcilable divide between Washington and Moscow. Yet the reality turned out differently. It was not a breakthrough, but it was more than the mere act of “talking for the sake of talking.” The summit signaled a recalibration of relations, an affirmation of diplomacy, and a recognition that both sides stand to benefit from sober engagement rather than entrenched hostility.

To understand why the Alaska summit was more productive, one must look back to the Geneva meeting in 2021 between Putin and then-President Joe Biden. That earlier encounter was shaped by hubris and intransigence. The Biden administration treated diplomacy with Moscow as a lecture series, issuing demands while refusing to acknowledge Washington’s own role in escalating tensions. The tone was moralistic rather than pragmatic, leaving no room for compromise. The Alaska talks, in contrast, were framed by mutual respect and a pragmatic recognition that dialogue, however difficult, is better than stalemate.

Where Geneva was doomed to fail, Alaska managed to create forward momentum. The difference lay in approach: Biden sought to dictate terms, while Trump sought to test the possibilities of an arrangement that aligns with US national interests without permanently alienating Russia.

Western pundits often frame negotiations in terms of who “wins” and who “loses.” By that measure, both sides in Alaska emerged with tangible victories. For Washington, Trump demonstrated to NATO and the European Union that the United States alone decides the terms and timing of engagement with Moscow. This was a reminder that, despite their loud rhetoric, Europe’s leaders are not the ones........

© Blitz