Scott Ritter – The Alaska Summit: Winners and Losers
by Scott Ritter [8-20-2025 published] Scott Ritter(bio).
AI Summary: The Alaska Summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin concluded with both leaders hailing it as successful. However, the summit resulted in a significant shift in US policy, with Trump now supporting Russia's conflict termination formula of a comprehensive peace agreement before any ceasefire, contradicting his previous stance and European allies' views. Trump's embrace of the Russian position on Ukraine, which involves full Russian control over claimed territories and expulsion of Ukrainian troops, has left the Ukrainian president and European supporters in a difficult position. Trump has also signaled a retreat from US military support for Ukraine, putting the onus on Europe to engage with Russia. The summit's outcome has sparked domestic political backlash in the US, with critics condemning Trump's stance, but the president remains focused on fulfilling his campaign promises to his political base, including ending the conflict in Ukraine and improving relations with Russia.
The historic Alaska Summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has finished. Both presidents judged it to be a great success. But with every major event, there are winners and losers. Putin appears to have gotten everything he asked for, imposing Moscow’s Ukraine agenda on the US — even if turning this into reality faces obstacles. For the Trump administration, the only factor that really matters is how well the summit results play to Trump’s political base.
A year ago, US-Russian relations were at an all-time low. According to Central Intelligence Agency estimates, the deterioration of relations, combined with the heightening of tensions over the Ukraine war, had created a better than 50% chance for a nuclear war between the US and Russia by end-2024. It is in this context that Trump was elected president in November 2024, and it is this reality that drives his policy formulations since assuming office in January of this year. Following a series of phone calls with Putin, and the reestablishment of direct high-level diplomatic engagement between US and Russia, the US and Russian presidents finally met face-to-face in Alaska for a summit that was short in duration — and results, with Trump himself telling Fox News’ Sean Hannity that “it’s not a done deal at all” — but long in expectations.
Trump’s Policy Reversal
Perhaps the most significant outcome — other than the fact that the leaders of Russia and the US spoke face to face about the prospects for peace and improving bilateral relations — is Trump’s change of position regarding the importance of a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. In the days leading up to the summit, Trump had been adamant about the importance of a ceasefire agreement coming from this summit, in alignment with Europe. Instead, Trump has completely reversed course and embraced the Russian conflict termination formula — a comprehensive peace agreement before any ceasefire. European leaders argue this will allow Russia to continue to wage war and make territorial gains, giving it greater leverage in negotiations.
While no detailed breakout of what the two leaders discussed has been made public, Trump’s shift is not wholly surprising, especially when one considers the fact that Trump, unlike former President Joe Biden, seems to have embraced a critical aspect of the Russian narrative — that the conflict was a byproduct of Nato, with Trump also blaming Biden’s move to welcome Ukraine’s membership in Nato for triggering Russia’s invasion. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s acknowledgement that the Ukraine war was a proxy war between the US and Russia, when combined with Trump’s observations about Nato expansion, plays into this Russian narrative.
Russia insists that the totality of the territory claimed by Russia (Kherson, Zaporozhia, Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea) will fall fully under the constitutional jurisdiction of Russia, and that all Ukrainian troops must either voluntarily be evacuated or else forcefully expelled.
Sanctions pressure was nowhere to be seen, with Rubio making the case that tighter sanctions would close the door to talks, and Trump only vaguely suggesting he might think about secondary tariffs on China for its imports of Russian oil. "Because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that now," he told Fox’s Hannity, adding: "I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something.”
Cleaning Up the Mess
The Trump-Putin Summit has left US policy regarding Ukraine in a complete shambles. The dysfunction of US policy formulation and implementation — where multiple vectors were engaging with multiple parties without any apparent coordination — has come home to roost, and now Trump needs to clean up the mess.
Trump has truly embraced the Russian position, and this puts Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and his European supporters in a difficult situation. Rubio has announced that the US is finished militarily supporting Ukraine in this conflict, while being open to the prospects of selling weapons to Europe that could then be provided by Europe to Ukraine. Zelenskiy and the leaders of Europe were summoned to the White House for consultations that delivered nothing of substance. While Europe spoke of providing Article 5-like security guarantees (i.e., collective security) for post-conflict Ukraine, Trump was adamant that Europe would have to take the lead; this is far short of a direct parallel with Article 5, which only has teeth if the US is fully committed.
Europe has been put on notice — fully support the new US policy posture or face the reality that they will be compelled to confront a resurgent Russia alone. Despite all of the posturing and bluster coming out of Europe about the need to militarily confront Russia and that stopping Russia in Ukraine is essential for European security, the reality is that Europe is unable to back up its aggressive stance without full US support, which is now lacking.
One of Trump’s biggest challenges will be getting Europe to consider a new security framework premised on Russian terms without precipitating a US-European divorce. The US has the levers of influence capable of pressuring Europe to do its bidding — sanctions, tariffs, the threat of US military disengagement from Europe, and ultimately the future of the trans-Atlantic alliance itself. But more and more, Trump is insinuating that if neither Ukraine nor Europe will yield to his demands, the US is prepared to simply walk away from the conflict altogether. Europe is neither ready for a divorce, the consequences of which could see the EU split into competing factions vying for strong bilateral connectivity with the US — putting EU cohesiveness to the test, nor can it stand on its own.
Neither is the European defense industry capable of producing the material necessary for the kind of military expansion Nato’s European members are planning. However, that’s the case regardless of how hands-on US military support is for Ukraine. As such, Europe is looking to the US for weapons supplies, with those purchases partly underpinning the recent EU-US framework trade deal. But ramping up military expenditure does raise sustainability questions for European governments amid depleted coffers and a collective population already suffering the economic blowback from higher gas prices after Moscow and acts of sabotage cut off piped Russian supplies to Europe, with Brussels additionally now aiming to end Russian energy imports by end-2027.
From a domestic political perspective, Trump will have to deal with deep concerns about his position on Russia. The mainstream media, the political establishment (Republican and Democrat alike), and academia are already condemning the Alaska Summit in stark terms. But Trump’s goal isn’t to assuage the political elite but rather to fulfil promises made to his political base. With critical midterm elections looming on the horizon, Trump, more than anyone, understands the necessity of delivering on his promise to end the conflict in Ukraine and promote better relations with Russia. This reality, more than anything else, appears to be the driving factor behind Trump’s policy reversal triggered by the Alaska summit.