Thaw in Alaska: What to expect from the meeting between Trump and Putin

Prof. Glenn Diesen in Weltwoche

The following article war originally published in German in Die Weltwoche: https://weltwoche.ch/story/tauwetter-in-alaska/?fbclid=IwY2xjawMMB9xleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHqp0WA4g_1JWbvu1Ykxf8uRvfy-wLCQB65wWtV2iAPNUxciDi_V-GF0JcUOo_aem_JJSGXLR0Wco1hlDV2LPNNA

The meeting between Trump and Putin came as a surprise to most people, partly because of the lack of clarity regarding Trump’s intentions. Trump prides himself on strategic ambiguity during negotiations and he does not tend to articulate his broader political ideas. Instead, he seeks to achieve his goals through deals, deception, and pressure. Not revealing one's intentions and possible cards to play can offer an advantage, and it might be necessary as the different sides are far apart. On one side the Russians have presented difficult demands for a political settlement, and on the other side the US political class, the European leaders and Zelensky are committed to continuing the war.

Only a week ago, Trump was threatening Russia to accept an “unconditional ceasefire” that would not include a political settlement. This appeared to be an effort to prolong the war, as freezing the collapsing frontlines would buy NATO some time to rearm its Ukrainian proxy and fight Russia another day. Now, the Russians suggest that the Americans have presented an acceptable offer, and Trump says Zelensky will have to sign something. The Russians have remained adamant that a political settlement is required—one that restores Ukraine’s neutrality and accepts territorial concessions.

So how can we interpret Trump’s reversal? There are three competing hypotheses:

1. Trump is fighting the political establishment in his efforts to transform U.S.-Russia relations.

2. Trump has fallen in line with the hawkish political establishment and seeks to deceive Russia to prevent a NATO defeat.

3. Trump has found a middle path by outsourcing the containment of Russia to Europe, which enables the U.S. to engage Russia in other parts of the world.

Transforming Relations

The first hypothesis is that Trump is seeking to adjust to a multipolar world by fundamentally transforming U.S.-Russia relations after a century of hostilities. Attempting to confront and contain all other great powers is necessary to preserve unipolarity, but in a multipolar world, it merely unites the world against the U.S. Pushing Russia into the arms of China creates Henry Kissinger’s worst nightmare, and the broader integration of a Eurasia opposed to the U.S. would make Halford Mackinder tremble. The U.S. seeks to end the proxy war in Ukraine so it can reduce its presence in Europe and pivot to Asia.

The lack of clarity and duplicity from Trump is then an effort to manage the American political class and European leaders who are still trapped in a Cold War mindset and who want to keep the war going. U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said in February 2025 that Ukraine would have to restore its neutrality by ruling out NATO membership, and it would also have to accept the loss of territory. This was consistent with Trump’s comments that NATO expansion started the war. However, this was met with fierce resistance from Washington, Europe, and Zelensky. Furthermore, it appeared to be a unilateral concession—meeting Russia’s demands before negotiations had even begun.

Suddenly, Trump began to shift his position. No longer was this a NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine, but a bilateral Russia-Ukraine conflict in which the U.S. acted as a mediator. Yet, progress was made as the US gradually pulled back by selling weapons rather than gifting them, the Europeans accepted greater responsibility for their own security, and Zelensky abandoned his reluctance to negotiate with Russia.

Deceiving Russia

The second hypothesis is that Trump has joined the hawkish political establishment, and it is Russia that is being deceived. Russia has won the war, as NATO is running out of weapons and Ukrainian soldiers, and the frontlines are collapsing faster and faster. The solution, then, is to freeze the frontlines with an “unconditional ceasefire” that would serve the same purpose as the Minsk II agreement—to halt the fighting, rebuild the Ukrainian army, and fight another day.

Russia predictably did not capitulate to Trump’s threats during the 50-day deadline, which was later shortened to 10 days. Russia considers NATO’s incursion into Ukraine to be an existential threat and has suffered greatly over the past 3.5 years to neutralize this threat. Thus, it was absurd to think that Russia would bow to any threats. Furthermore, the U.S. does not have significant trade with Russia to sanction, while China and India have signaled they will ignore Trump’s secondary sanctions.

It is not inconceivable that Trump will now seek to achieve a ceasefire with the false promise of a wider agreement on European security—something the Russians have been attempting to secure for the past 35 years. The idea of a new, inclusive pan-European security architecture based on the principle of indivisible security was abandoned in the 1990s, as the West pursued a hegemonic peace through NATO expansion. The premise was that stability and peace would derive from NATO expanding closer and closer to Russia’s borders.

Trump may believe he can deceive Russia by appealing to what it wants most—and he could be correct in that assessment. However, Putin is likely sceptic, shaped by two decades of experience with American presidents who entered office with a desire for change but eventually fell in line with the political establishment. Furthermore, Moscow probably still remembers that Trump once claimed they were close to a nuclear deal with Iran, which lowered Iran’s guard ahead of a U.S.-Israeli decapitation strike that had been planned long in advance.

Outsourcing the containment of Russia

Transforming relations with Russia does not require an end to America's hegemonic ambitions or a cessation of all hostilities. Biden aimed to restore U.S. hegemony by defeating Russia through a Ukrainian proxy, which would have allowed the U.S. to focus its resources on confronting China. However, the war has been lost, and Trump now wants to split the two Eurasian giants by improving ties with Russia.

Yet, the ideal scenario for America’s pursuit of hegemonic ambitions would be to maintain friendly relations with Russia in Asia, while continuing containment efforts in Europe. This could be achieved through a new division of labour that outsources the containment of Russia to the Europeans, which enables the US to continue killing of Russians and to maintain European subservience. The objective in Alaska would then be to detach the U.S. from the war altogether, which would keep the Europeans in the fight.

It is not certain yet what Trump’s objectives are and who he is deceiving, however, Trump’s hand will likely be exposed during the meeting in Alaska.