written on Aug. 19th, 2025.
The Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska could have far-reaching consequences, undermining the global effort to hold Russia accountable and increasing the risks for Ukraine. The damage would come not only from the concrete outcomes of the meeting, but also from the signals it sends and the narratives it reinforces.
1. Propaganda and Narrative Control: The Russian state-controlled media could use the meeting as a sign of Putin’s strength and influence, and to portray Putin as a powerful and respected leader, capable of engaging with world leaders on equal footing, despite Western criticism. This strengthens his image domestically and bolster his domestic support.
2. Legitimacy and Recognition on the world stage: this meeting, especially on U.S. soil, elevates Putin’s status and signals that he’s still a relevant player on the world stage, despite international condemnation for the war in Ukraine.
3. Breaking Isolation: Putin has faced increased isolation from Western leaders. A meeting with a prominent figure like the president of US, even if controversial, could be portrayed as a step towards breaking that isolation and signaling that Russia still has important relationships and influence.
4. Leverage in Negotiations: A meeting sets up a direct channel for communication and negotiation between US and Russia. Some might argue that Putin is skilled at using these situations to his advantage, potentially extracting concessions or spreading misinformation.
5. Undermining Western Unity: this meeting could be used to sow discord and division within the Western alliance. If Trump expresses views that are sympathetic to Russia or critical of Ukraine, it could create further cracks in the united front against Russian aggression.
6. opportunity for Influence: this meeting allows Trump and Putin to collude and shift the blame for the lack of a ceasefire onto Ukraine: Ukraine is portrayed by Trump as unwilling to negotiate in good faith and prolonging the conflict unnecessarily. Trump and Putin could coordinate blaming Ukraine for the continued bloodshed.
7. From this meeting on, Putin got a direct channel to communicate with Trump which provides an opportunity to directly influence Trump’s thinking or actions, potentially leading to policies that are more favorable to Russia. This is particularly relevant given past concerns about Russian interference in U.S. elections.
1) Challenging the Status Quo: The very act of meeting, despite international condemnation of Russia’s actions, could be seen as a challenge to the existing international order and a signal that Russia is not bound by Western norms that underpin the sanctions regime and the broader effort to isolate Russia. It sends a message that aggression and violations of international law can be tolerated or even rewarded.
8. The meeting greatly weakens the achievements of European countries in sanctioning and internationally isolating Russia in recent years:
2) Signaling a shift in US policy: this meeting sends a powerful signal that US policy towards Russia is changing, regardless of the actual outcomes of the meeting. this undermines the credibility and effectiveness of the sanctions regime.
3) Encouraging sanctions evasion: US engaging with Russia, instead of exposing sanctions on Russia, is a sign to other countries which might encourage other countries to ease their sanctions or increase trade with Russia through loopholes, weakening the overall economic pressure on the kremlin.
4) Normalizing relations with Russia: the meeting could be seen as a step towards normalizing relations with Russia, even without any concrete changes in Russia behavior. This normalization undermines the principle that Russia should be held accountable for its aggression and violations of international law.
5) Creating divisions within the EU: the meeting could exacerbate existing divisions within the European union and NATO over how to deal with Russia, weakening the EU’s collective response.
6) Diminishing the impact of international tribunals: it can weaken the efforts made in various international tribunes and criminal justice systems to accuse Russia of war crimes. If two countries are having a meeting to promote peace, then it looks more like the war crimes are being forgiven, lessening the significance of any international tribunal process.
At the same time, this meeting put Ukraine in a more vulnerable position. This vulnerability stems from the potential erosion of Western support, the undermining of Ukraine’s negotiating position, increased pressure to make concessions, etc.
1. Weakening of Western Support: Trump expressed views sympathetic to Russia, which might undermine Western or US resolve to support Ukraine with military aid, financial assistance, and sanctions against Russia. It could also create divisions within NATO and the EU, making it more difficult to maintain a united front against Russian aggression. Some countries might become hesitant to continue supporting Ukraine if they perceive a shift in U.S. policy.
2. Undermining Ukraine’s Negotiating Position: Ukraine could be used as a bargaining chip in any potential negotiations between Trump and Putin, potentially leading to outcomes that are detrimental to Ukraine’s interests. For example, Trump might pressure Ukraine to make concessions on territory or political alignment in exchange for a ceasefire.
3. The meeting could send a message that Ukraine’s own voice and perspective are not being prioritized, undermining its sovereignty and agency in determining its own future.
4. Increased Pressure on Ukraine to Negotiate on Unfavorable Terms: The perception that Western support is wavering could weaken Ukraine’s leverage in any future negotiations with Russia, forcing it to accept less favorable terms.
