The Alaska Summit and Its Afterlife
Written by Elisa Garbil – 01.09.2025
The Alaska summit, convened between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, was presented as a breakthrough moment of diplomacy, a supposed glimpse of how peace might be brokered after years of brutal war in Ukraine. Yet the event revealed less about genuine pathways to stability than about how both leaders envision a new balance of power. The aftermath has not been defined by resolution but by a multiplication of risks: for Ukraine’s sovereignty, for Western alliances, and for the credibility of the international order.
Instead of easing tensions, the summit has left a geopolitical aftertaste of uncertainty. Russia has walked away with the impression of being elevated once more to the level of indispensable actor. The United States has exposed fissures in its own political system and strained transatlantic trust. Europe finds itself unsettled, pulled between pragmatism and principle. And Ukraine, the country most directly affected, has been sidelined, its agency threatened by the spectacle of great powers talking over its head.
Russia’s Calculated Gains and the Dangers of Overreach
The clearest beneficiary of the Alaska encounter was Moscow. By staging itself as a co-author of “peace”, Russia managed to recast its image from aggressor to negotiator. The optics alone allowed Putin to present Russia not as isolated but as a global power whose presence at the summit table was indispensable.
But this is a precarious triumph. The more Russia presses its advantage, the more it risks overreach. The attempt to fix territorial gains in Ukraine through the guise of negotiation may appear clever in the short term, but it risks reigniting Western determination if the settlement is transparently unjust. The notion of inevitability that Russia seeks to project could unravel if the gap between its ambition and its capacity becomes too wide. Overplaying its hand may expose vulnerabilities rather than consolidating strength.
Ukraine’s Precarious Position
For Ukraine, the risks are existential and immediate. The summit reframed the war as a problem to be closed rather than a struggle for sovereignty. This shift leaves Ukraine vulnerable on several fronts. Territorial integrity is at stake if negotiations crystallise Russia’s occupation into recognised control. Security guarantees are uncertain, since promises made at such summits often dissolve once attention shifts elsewhere. Domestic stability is fragile, as any settlement perceived as capitulation could fracture political consensus in Kyiv and weaken national resilience.
Ukraine therefore finds itself trapped between two perils: rejecting pressure to compromise risks alienating Western partners eager for de-escalation, but yielding to such pressure could permanently diminish its sovereignty and destabilise its politics. This is not a roadmap to peace but a deepening of peril.
Fractures Within NATO and the European Union
The Alaska summit also unsettled Europe. While some leaders expressed cautious support for renewed dialogue, many others saw danger in the spectacle. The underlying fear is that the United States, under Trump’s leadership, may tilt toward accommodation with Moscow at the expense of European security.
This dynamic exposes NATO to serious risks. The alliance’s credibility depends on its commitment to defending sovereignty; if Ukraine is sacrificed, deterrence is weakened across the continent. Diverging national positions threaten cohesion, with some states tempted by stability at any cost and others unwilling to accept any settlement that rewards aggression. Should NATO falter in unity, Russia could exploit the cracks, not only in Ukraine but also in the Baltic states or the wider neighbourhood. The EU faces similar strains, caught between energy pragmatism, economic concerns, and the imperative of defending European values.
The United States and the Price of Ambiguity
In the United States, the summit generated turbulence of its own. Trump’s overtures to Putin played well with his political base but exposed him to accusations of undermining national interests. Institutions such as the Pentagon and State Department remain skeptical of any concessions to Russia, raising the risk of bureaucratic paralysis.
Internationally, American credibility is at stake. Allies already question Washington’s consistency. A summit that sidelines Ukraine only reinforces doubts about U.S. leadership. If the world perceives America as willing to sacrifice principle for expediency, it will struggle to rally coalitions in other theaters, from the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East. Thus, the risks for the U.S. are layered: domestic division, institutional resistance, and reputational erosion abroad.
The Theatre of Distraction
The Alaska summit was, in many ways, a performance. Carefully choreographed images of handshakes and ambiguous statements were designed to project authority rather than to resolve conflict. For Putin, the theatre reinforced Russia’s narrative of indispensability. For Trump, it offered the optics of being a dealmaker.
The danger of this performance lies in distraction. Attention shifted from the devastation in Ukraine to the spectacle in Alaska. Civilian suffering, continued shelling, and displacement were overshadowed by diplomatic showmanship. This risks normalising the war, treating it as background noise while world leaders engage in dramatic but shallow pageantry.
The Perils of Appeasement
The deeper danger embedded in the summit is the risk of appeasement. If Russia’s territorial gains are legitimised in the name of peace, a precedent is set that conquest can succeed. The cost would not be confined to Europe. Other authoritarian actors may draw lessons, interpreting Western concessions as signals of weakness. The global system of sovereignty and territorial integrity, already under strain, would erode further.
Such appeasement also carries democratic risks at home. Citizens may lose faith in leaders who appear willing to compromise on fundamental principles. Disillusionment could fuel populism, polarisation, and instability across democratic societies. The short-term quiet of appeasement thus seeds the ground for long-term turbulence.
Russia’s Global Ambitions Beyond Ukraine
The summit also revealed that Moscow views its struggle as larger than Ukraine. By sitting across from an American president, Putin positions Russia as a peer competitor in shaping global order. This is part of a wider effort to expand influence in regions such as Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, portraying Russia as a global actor rather than a regional spoiler.
Yet here too lie risks of overreach. Russia’s resources are limited, and stretching them across multiple theaters may expose weakness rather than strength. Moreover, the global narrative Moscow seeks to project resonates primarily with authoritarian or anti-Western governments. If the gap between spectacle and substance grows too wide, Russia’s attempt to rebrand itself may falter, generating backlash and skepticism even among potential partners.
A Web of Compounding Risks
What emerges from the Alaska summit is not a pathway to peace but a web of compounding risks. These risks span multiple levels:
- Geopolitical: The European security order is destabilised, NATO cohesion tested.
- Strategic: Russia risks overreach, the U.S. risks credibility loss.
- Reputational: Leaders risk being branded as appeasers or weak.
- Domestic: Zelensky risks internal fracture, Trump risks institutional resistance, European leaders risk political backlash.
- Systemic: The precedent of rewarding aggression threatens global norms of sovereignty and law.
Each of these risks interacts with the others, multiplying instability rather than resolving it.
Precariousness in Place of Peace
The Alaska summit was billed as a glimpse of peace but has instead revealed the fragility of the international order. It elevated Russia’s status without restraining its aggression, marginalised Ukraine’s agency, strained Western alliances, and unsettled American credibility. The summit functioned as theatre, distracting from suffering on the ground while planting seeds of appeasement that could haunt global politics for decades.
Rather than closing the chapter of war, the Alaska summit has written a new one: a chapter of precariousness, where risks proliferate across geopolitics, strategy, reputation, and domestic politics. The promise of peace has given way to the reality of instability, which is a stark reminder that diplomacy as spectacle can sometimes be more dangerous than war itself.
