Notes on the Alaska Summit
Notes on the Alaska Summit
Patterns are often easier to see from a distance. When I look at the arc leading to the Alaska meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, certain threads stand out. The first is the absence of leverage. The United States imports so little from Russia that trade tariffs — one of Washington’s traditional tools — carry almost no weight. This means that when ultimatums fail, as they did just weeks before the summit, there is little left to enforce them. And yet, the meeting goes ahead.
The second is the choreography of exclusion. European leaders, who have carried much of the cost of resisting Russian aggression, find themselves watching from the outside. The summit’s location, far from the capitals of Europe, reinforces the message that Washington and Moscow can discuss matters affecting Europe without Europe in the room.
The third is the narrowing of the Ukrainian position. To suggest, as Trump has, that “some land-swapping” might resolve the war is to frame sovereignty as negotiable — an approach that aligns uncomfortably well with Moscow’s goals. Whether intended or not, it signals to allies and adversaries alike that the defense of borders may be open to reinterpretation.
What these patterns share is their potential to alter the structure of alliances without any formal announcement or signed agreement. They work through signals — who is invited, what is said aloud, what is left unchallenged. The result is a shift in how power and commitment are perceived, both inside and outside the West.
The Alaska summit will produce images and statements. But its deeper impact may lie in what it reveals about the current state of trust, leverage, and consultation among those who claim to share the same security concerns. What comes of that is yet to be seen.