{"id":1982,"date":"2025-08-16T16:31:32","date_gmt":"2025-08-16T16:31:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.youtubexyoutube.com\/?p=1982"},"modified":"2025-08-22T13:56:19","modified_gmt":"2025-08-22T13:56:19","slug":"no-blitzkrieg-no-defeat-what-russian-experts-are-saying-after-the-putin-trump-summit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.youtubexyoutube.com\/index.php\/2025\/08\/16\/no-blitzkrieg-no-defeat-what-russian-experts-are-saying-after-the-putin-trump-summit\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018No blitzkrieg, no defeat\u2019: What Russian experts are saying after the Putin-Trump summit"},"content":{"rendered":"

RT has compiled the reactions to the summit and what it means for Washington, Moscow, and the global balance of power<\/strong><\/p>\n

The meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska marked their first face-to-face talks since Trump\u2019s return to the White House. The summit began with a brief one-on-one exchange inside Trump’s presidential limousine, followed by extended negotiations involving both delegations. At a subsequent joint press conference, the two leaders described the talks as constructive and signaled an openness to a follow-up round of negotiations.<\/p>\n

RT has gathered insights from leading Russian experts on how the outcome of the summit is being perceived in Moscow \u2013 highlighting the tone, symbolism, and potential global implications of this long-anticipated encounter.<\/p>\n

Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs:<\/h3>\n

Analogies are always imperfect, but the Alaska summit inevitably brought to mind the first meeting between Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan in Geneva nearly forty years ago. Not because of its substance \u2013 if anything, the content was the opposite \u2013 but because of its structure. Just like back then, no deal was struck, but the level of communication shifted dramatically.<\/p>\n

Trump didn\u2019t get the diplomatic blitz he was hoping for. But the meeting didn\u2019t end in rupture either. The positional standoff continues. If we follow the logic of the 1980s, the next milestone might be a \u201cReykjavik moment\u201d<\/em> \u2013 like in 1986, when no agreement was reached, but the ideas floated were radical and far-reaching. The real breakthrough came later in Washington in 1987 with the signing of the INF Treaty \u2013 the same agreement that died in two stages, both under Trump\u2019s presidency.<\/p>\n

This time, the pace is faster. This isn\u2019t a Cold War; it\u2019s something hotter. There won\u2019t be year-long pauses between summits. We\u2019ll see follow-ups much sooner \u2013 of one kind or another. Critics will try to spin the Alaska meeting as a Trump defeat, arguing that Putin dictated the tempo and set the terms. There\u2019s some truth to that. But if the goal is a sustainable outcome, there\u2019s no alternative to tackling the full scope of issues head-on.<\/p>\n

\n
\n Fyodor Lukyanov.<\/p>\n


\n \u00a9\u00a0 Sputnik\/Kristina Kormilitsyna <\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

If the process launched in Alaska continues in the same spirit, we could see an outcome that\u2019s the reverse of what followed Geneva. Back then, Reagan pushed to end the Cold War on Washington\u2019s terms \u2013 and succeeded. Today, what\u2019s on the table is the end of the post-Cold War era, a time defined by unchallenged US global dominance. That shift isn\u2019t sudden \u2013 it\u2019s been building for years \u2013 but it\u2019s now reached a climax. And notably, much of the demand for this shift is coming from within the\u00a0US\u00a0itself \u2013 just as, back in the day, the Soviet push for change came largely from within its own society.<\/p>\n

As before, the road is winding. There are plenty of actors \u2013 domestic and international \u2013 who will try to halt or reverse the momentum. Much will depend on whether both presidents truly believe they\u2019re headed in the right direction.<\/p>\n

One last, telling detail: Forty years ago in Geneva, the defining image of change was a joint press conference, where journalists from both sides got to question the leader of the opposing camp for the first time. Openness was seen as a necessary step toward solving deep-rooted problems. This time, the symbolism lies in the absence of questions \u2013 neither leader took any. Real diplomacy is trying to retreat into quiet, away from the performative and often destructive media spectacle that has consumed international politics in recent decades. In a way, secrecy is staging a comeback.<\/p>\n

Dmitry Novikov, associate professor at the Higher School of Economics:<\/h3>\n

From the standpoint of Russian interests, the Anchorage summit can be seen as a relative success for Moscow. Two key aspects stand out.<\/p>\n

Tactically, Russia managed once again to regain control over the pace of negotiations. The Kremlin defused Trump\u2019s rising irritation \u2013 marked by threats and pressure tactics \u2013 that had begun to build dangerously. Had that escalation continued, it could have derailed both the Ukraine talks and the broader process of normalizing bilateral relations. From the outset, Moscow approached both tracks with deliberation and patience \u2013 partly because of its still-growing battlefield advantage, and partly because the complexity of the issues demands exactly that: no rush, no oversimplification.<\/p>\n

Strategically, both sides came out ahead \u2013 if only because the existence of meaningful communication between nuclear superpowers is a net positive by definition. Judging by the signals out of Washington, the Trump administration seems to share that view.<\/p>\n

\n
\n Dmitry Novikov.<\/p>\n


\n <\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The summit also confirmed something I\u2019ve noted before: Trump is genuinely interested in resetting relations with Moscow. He sees negotiations with Russia as a cheaper, more efficient way to achieve his strategic goals in Europe. That\u2019s why he\u2019s open to serious dialogue \u2013 even if it doesn\u2019t produce immediate media wins or flashy breakthroughs.<\/p>\n

Going forward, the real test of the impact of Anchorage will be how the Trump administration engages with its European allies and with Ukraine. Both will undoubtedly try to pull Trump back into their strategic framework. The tone and substance of those next conversations will tell us a lot about what was really achieved in Alaska.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Kornilov, political analyst:<\/h3>\n

\u201cA Historic Handshake in Alaska\u201d\u00a0<\/em>\u2013 that was the front-page headline splashed across many European newspapers this morning. To be fair, most of those editions went to press while the summit was still underway, which means their coverage lacked any meaningful analysis. As a result, much of what was published focused on optics \u2013 body language, symbolic gestures, red carpets, and so on.<\/p>\n

But the real action has been unfolding online and on Western news channels, which have been flooded with hot takes and instant commentary. Many of them verge on panic \u2013 some, outright hysteria.<\/p>\n

At the core of this reaction is a bitter truth: the West is coming to terms with the collapse of its long-running effort to isolate Russia and its president. That\u2019s the underlying cause of all the wailing in the Western media swamps.<\/p>\n

\n
\n Vladimir Kornilov.<\/p>\n


\n \u00a9\u00a0 Sputnik\/Kirill Zykov <\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

One theme dominates the Western analysis: Russia got what it wanted out of the Alaska summit. That\u2019s the consensus across a wide spectrum of commentators and anchors. Many of them didn\u2019t bother to hide their frustration that they weren\u2019t allowed to ask a single question during the much-anticipated joint press conference between the US and Russian leaders.<\/p>\n

Whatever the tangible policy outcomes of the summit may turn out to be, one thing is now beyond dispute: the meeting in Alaska has locked in a new reality on the global stage.<\/p>\n

Valentin Bogdanov, VGTRK New York bureau chief:<\/h3>\n

\u201cFrom the very first frames of the broadcast from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, one thing was clear: isolation had failed. The red carpet, the honor guard flanked by fighter jets, the handshake, the smiles \u2013 it all looked far more like Russia\u2019s return to the world stage than another attempt to shove it off.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cRussian America\u201d<\/em> played host to a summit of neighbors \u2013 one neighbor applauding the other. On the runway, the two presidential planes were parked as close together as the Diomede Islands in the Bering Strait. The symbolism of convergence wasn\u2019t lost \u2013 geographically or diplomatically.<\/p>\n

It was a day of mourning for those who had bet on failure or scandal. Now they\u2019re nitpicking anything they can get their hands on. Some latched onto the canceled working lunch as proof of a snub. Though, ironically, many of the same voices had just been criticizing Trump for agreeing to that lunch in the first place \u2013 calling it a sign of weakness.<\/p>\n

\n
\n Valentin Bogdanov.<\/p>\n


\n \u00a9\u00a0 VGTRK <\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Meanwhile, body language experts wasted no time analyzing the subtle choreography from the moment the two presidents appeared on camera \u2013 from eye contact to the timing of their handshake. Putin and Trump quickly settled into a shared rhythm. Of course, there will now be a concerted effort \u2013 by the usual suspects \u2013 to knock them out of sync.<\/p>\n

But inside the White House, officials are already discussing a follow-up meeting. According to their thinking, it could be the breakthrough needed to untangle the Ukraine knot. The American end of that knot, it seems, has already started to loosen.<\/p>\n

Elena Panina, Director of the Institute for International Political and Economic Strategies:<\/h3>\n

The three-hour meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson wasn\u2019t just a diplomatic encounter \u2013 it was arguably the defining political event of 2025. It will shape not only the foreign policy agendas of the US, Russia, Europe, and Ukraine, but also their domestic political discourse. Every moment \u2013 from the ten-minute one-on-one in the US president\u2019s limousine to the closing handshake \u2013 has already become fodder for interpretation in the Western press.<\/p>\n

Just consider CNN\u2019s reaction: their lead takeaway was that, contrary to standard protocol, the Russian leader \u2013 not the host \u2013 was the first to speak at the joint press conference. In diplomacy, such details are never trivial. They\u2019re read as subtle signals of power dynamics \u2013 either gestures of politeness or expressions of parity.<\/p>\n

And politeness, notably, was in abundant supply \u2013 something all observers picked up on. Compared to Trump\u2019s meetings over the past six months, this was a dramatic shift. No shouting matches\u00a0such as with Zelensky, no mocking jabs like those aimed at German Chancellor Merz, and none of the alpha posturing he\u2019s shown with the likes of Ursula von der Leyen or Cyril Ramaphosa. Instead, the tone was marked by deliberate courtesy and mutual respect, with both leaders carefully sidestepping flashpoints.<\/p>\n

\n
\n Elena Panina.<\/p>\n


\n \u00a9\u00a0 Sputnik\/Vladimir Astapkovich <\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

So how should we interpret the abrupt press conference and the canceled lunch? In high-level diplomacy, a lack of formal agreements doesn\u2019t necessarily mean the meeting was empty. On the contrary \u2013 it\u2019s clear that on core issues like halting arms shipments to Kiev, easing sanctions on Russia, and opening new channels of sectoral cooperation, Trump simply can\u2019t commit on the spot. Not without congressional approval \u2013 and not without running it past his NATO allies.<\/p>\n

Of course, Anchorage was no \u201cnew Yalta\u201d<\/em> \u2013 no grand endgame like the one that concluded the defining geopolitical chess match of the 20th century. But it might just be something else: a strong, tempo-preserving opening in a new strategic game between Washington and Moscow. A game that could unfold in a series of calculated moves \u2013 perhaps not redrawing the global map, but at the very least cooling the hottest points of tension.<\/p>\n

The opening move has been made. The real question now is whether Trump can push through the internal and external constraints he faces \u2013 so that this debut in Alaska evolves into a full-fledged game.<\/p>\n

Timofey Bordachev, professor at the Higher School of Economics:<\/h3>\n

I personally never expected the summit to resolve the war in Ukraine. The conflict is simply the core of a much broader crisis \u2013 one that runs through the entire architecture of European security.<\/p>\n

What struck me as most important was the spirit of the meeting itself. After 35 years of accumulated tension, the US-Russia confrontation is \u2013 at least under Donald Trump \u2013 being redirected into a more civilized framework. Each side still operates under its own set of constraints and domestic limitations. But critically, the US has now shelved the idea of pursuing Russia\u2019s \u201cstrategic defeat\u201d<\/em> or attempting to isolate it completely. That shift is profound. Framing the conflict in such absolute, existential terms had made it unsolvable \u2013 it took it out of the realm of international relations\u00a0toward something more akin to a crusade.<\/p>\n

\n
\n Timofey Bordachev.<\/p>\n


\n \u00a9\u00a0 Sputnik\/Evgeny Biyatov <\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This change signals the emergence of a new reality: the conflict remains, and its military-technical phase will likely continue for now. But it\u2019s no longer treated as a moral or existential struggle \u2013 it has become a normal, if deeply entrenched, dispute in the history of great power politics. And that makes it solvable.<\/p>\n

There are no longer any metaphysical or ideological reasons for it to continue \u2013 only diverging interests and circumstantial pressures. In Washington\u2019s case, that pressure stems from a surplus of global commitments and unsustainable strategic wagers. The sooner those burdens are recalibrated, the closer we get to meaningful outcomes.<\/p>\n

Ilya Kramnik, military analyst, expert at the Russian International Affairs Council:<\/h3>\n

A ready-made peace deal is, unfortunately, out of reach right now \u2013 largely due to divisions within the West itself.<\/p>\n

What comes next is the hardest part. No matter how productive the talks between the Russian and American presidents may have been, peace in Ukraine will require the involvement of European Union countries. That currently seems almost unthinkable, given the public positions of both the EU as a bloc and several key member states individually.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s own words \u2013 \u201cno deal yet\u201d<\/em> \u2013 along with his stated intention to reach out to Zelensky and European leaders, suggest that he understands this reality.<\/p>\n

\n
\n Ilya Kramnik.<\/p>\n


\n \u00a9\u00a0 Sputnik\/Grigory Sysoev <\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

At the same time, it\u2019s clear that the US and Russia have more to discuss beyond the war in Ukraine. Both presidents acknowledged mutual interests across a range of areas, and the existence of ongoing bilateral contacts reinforces that.<\/p>\n

So, yes, I expected the two sides to come to some level of understanding \u2013 including on issues unrelated to the ongoing conflict. As for ending the war itself, that will require a step-by-step process.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s essentially what happened in Anchorage. Now we wait to see how Europe responds \u2013 and, of course, what form a draft peace framework might eventually take.<\/p>\n

Sergey Poletaev, political commentator:<\/h3>\n

The most likely outcome was exactly what we got: an agreement to keep talking.<\/p>\n

There are two main problems. First, Trump doesn\u2019t see himself as a party to the conflict and wants to remain above the fray. Putin \u2013 rightly, in my view \u2013 sees it differently. He believes, and continues to insist, that only Trump can make the kind of decisive choices needed to end the war. If some movement on that front occurred in Anchorage, then real progress might now be possible.<\/p>\n

\n
\n Sergey Poletaev.<\/p>\n


\n <\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The second issue is Europe and Ukraine. For now, both remain committed to continuing the war. And I don\u2019t believe that can be changed through diplomacy alone \u2013 it will be decided on the battlefield. Sooner or later, the facts on the ground will shape a new shared reality for all four players: Russia, the US, Europe, and Ukraine.<\/p>\n

And based on how things are going, that reality will likely align more closely with Russia\u2019s view than with the Euro-Ukrainian one. That\u2019s when Trump will get his deal \u2013 but not before.<\/p>\n

Ivan Timofeev, program director of the Valdai Club:<\/h3>\n

No one realistically expected any breakthrough agreements from this summit, but the overall tone was clearly positive. It ended on an optimistic note, with both sides expressing a willingness to keep moving toward de-escalation and to explore broader areas of cooperation in US-Russia relations. In short, this is a process that\u2019s meant to continue.<\/p>\n

I believe both leaders walked away with everything they reasonably could have hoped for. Russia stood firm on its core positions but remained engaged in dialogue. The US, for its part, moved a step closer to the kind of peace it wants \u2013 one that lets it stop pouring resources into a geopolitical asset that\u2019s yielding no meaningful political return. In that sense, both sides can count the meeting as a win.<\/p>\n

There won\u2019t be any immediate sanctions. At the very least, we\u2019re likely to see a few weeks of status quo. What happens after that will depend on whether the dialogue continues in a stable, productive fashion. If concrete discussions follow \u2013 especially around terms for a settlement \u2013 and those discussions begin to bear fruit, we might even see a modestly positive shift on the sanctions front.<\/p>\n

\n
\n Ivan Timofeev.<\/p>\n


\n \u00a9\u00a0 Sputnik\/Vladimir Trefilov <\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

But if the process stalls or collapses for any reason, the risk of renewed pressure will rise. In that case, we\u2019re likely to see the so-called \u201csecondary tariffs\u201d<\/em> that Trump has previously floated \u2013 higher duties on third countries that buy Russian raw materials. We could also see new sanctions targeting Russia\u2019s energy sector to some degree.<\/p>\n

That said, it\u2019s worth noting that the US and its allies have already imposed a substantial range of restrictions on Russia. Moscow is not easily intimidated by new escalation measures. Still, that doesn\u2019t mean further sanctions are off the table \u2013 they remain a real possibility.<\/p>\n

Pavel Dubravsky, political commentator:<\/h3>\n

Russia came out of the summit looking stronger than the United States. Trump may have declared the meeting a \u201cten out of ten,\u201d<\/em> but in reality, he seemed tired \u2013 and frustrated.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s likely because he had two clear goals going into Anchorage. The first was to secure a hard \u201cno\u201d<\/em> from Moscow and then walk away from the Ukraine peace track entirely, spinning it as a win for his base: \u201cI\u2019m cutting your taxes, I\u2019m cutting your foreign entanglements \u2013 look, I didn\u2019t waste time or money on this.\u201d<\/em> The second, far more ambitious goal was to clinch a deal \u2013 a ceasefire of some kind, even a temporary one. A one-month pause, a symbolic step, anything he could present as diplomatic momentum. But he left empty-handed.<\/p>\n

In contrast, the Russian side struck a composed and strategic posture. They demonstrated an understanding of global diplomacy, but also sensitivity to US domestic politics. They even made gestures toward Ukraine\u2019s internal dynamics, calling on Kiev and European allies not to derail the talks. That tone \u2013 measured and outward-looking \u2013 was a diplomatic win in itself.<\/p>\n

\n
\n Pavel Dubravsky.<\/p>\n


\n \u00a9\u00a0 2025, Dubravsky Pavel Vladimirovich <\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

One of the most notable developments was Putin\u2019s language shift: for the first time, he openly spoke about Ukraine\u2019s own security. It seems likely this was something Trump pushed for, and Putin agreed to engage on. That signals potential future discussions on issues like territorial arrangements and security guarantees \u2013 topics that were long considered off-limits.<\/p>\n

Whether Trump is willing to travel to Moscow remains uncertain \u2013 it could carry political risks for him. But what\u2019s already clear is that Russia has broken out of a narrow diplomatic box. For the past three years, Western powers insisted on speaking to Russia only about Ukraine. That principle guided both the EU and the previous US administration. Now, the agenda has widened.<\/p>\n

Ukraine is no longer the sole topic on the table. That shift in itself is a major accomplishment for Russian diplomacy \u2013 reframing the dialogue and reshaping how Moscow is perceived in international politics today.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

RT has compiled the reactions to the summit and what it means for Washington, Moscow, and the global balance of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1938,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[11],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.youtubexyoutube.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1982"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.youtubexyoutube.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.youtubexyoutube.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.youtubexyoutube.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.youtubexyoutube.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1982"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/www.youtubexyoutube.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1982\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1996,"href":"http:\/\/www.youtubexyoutube.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1982\/revisions\/1996"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.youtubexyoutube.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1938"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.youtubexyoutube.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1982"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.youtubexyoutube.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1982"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.youtubexyoutube.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1982"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}