SAEDNEWS: The recent meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska, held amid extensive media promotion, ended without the signing of any agreement. Although Trump described it as “very successful,” the reality was that neither a ceasefire was achieved nor a clear solution for ending the Ukraine war was formed.
According to Saed News, citing the BBC, the Alaska summit was held in the midst of the Ukraine war and increasing pressures on both sides. Donald Trump, hoping to appear as a peace mediator, tried to portray the meeting with Putin as a turning point in his foreign policy. After the session, he made ambiguous remarks, stating that “progress has been made” and promised to meet with Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine, in the near future. However, when the details of the summit were revealed, it became clear that no agreement on a ceasefire or halt of attacks existed.
Vladimir Putin, on the other hand, had secured his achievement from the very start of the meeting: a return to the international stage and the breaking of what the West called “Russia’s isolation.” Russian media covered the meeting with enthusiasm, portraying it as a sign of the Kremlin’s renewed global credibility. For Putin, it did not matter whether an agreement was signed; his mere presence on U.S. soil, alongside a president who had once been a fierce critic of Russia’s policies, sent a message that resonated both domestically and internationally.
Meanwhile, Ukraine found itself in a difficult position. Trump’s remarks about “moving directly toward a peace agreement” without a ceasefire were seen in Kyiv as undermining Ukraine’s position. Zelensky immediately responded, declaring readiness for negotiations while emphasizing that any dialogue must be based on preserving Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Many analysts, however, interpreted Trump’s stance as a form of indirect pressure on Ukraine—a push to accept an agreement that might align more with Moscow’s interests than Kyiv’s demands.
Europeans were also concerned about this shift in tone from Washington. NATO member countries, particularly in Eastern Europe, warned that no agreement should be signed without real security guarantees for Ukraine and a clear commitment from Russia to halt military aggression. In their view, any hasty compromise between Washington and Moscow could leave Ukraine more vulnerable and weaken Western unity.
Despite all these criticisms, Trump continues to insist on the narrative of his “success.” He described the Alaska summit as evidence of his ability to communicate directly with America’s toughest rivals and emphasized that, compared to previous administrations, he had managed to bring Putin to the negotiating table. Critics, however, argue that the meeting was purely a political spectacle and produced no tangible gains for international security.
The reality is that the Alaska summit once again revealed the gap between the appearance and substance of Trump’s diplomacy: on the surface, a glamorous scene of two powerful leaders meeting; beneath it, the continuation of the same wartime situation, with no signs of reduced violence. For this reason, many analysts believe that Putin managed to present an image of “victory” to the world without paying any price, while Trump merely staged a media show for his domestic audience.
