The recent summit between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska, though rife with spectacle, yielded little in terms of concrete outcomes regarding the protracted conflict in Ukraine.
Initial assessments suggested a concerning shift in the U.S. stance, as it appeared that Trump aligned more closely with Putin’s demands for territorial concessions from Ukraine and a push for a comprehensive peace agreement rather than an immediate ceasefire, which conflicts with Putin’s interests as his forces advance on the battlefield.
These apparent concessions triggered alarm among European capitals, prompting a hastily arranged follow-up meeting on August 18 between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his European Union allies and Trump.
However, the promises made during that meeting were vague, leaving many seeking substantive progress in peace negotiations feeling frustrated.
As a scholar of Russian and Soviet history, I propose that while the discussions might seem fruitless, they actually hint at potential frameworks for a future peace deal that could satisfy both Putin and Trump.
While Ukraine’s perspective may seem sidelined, it is evident that this represents a budding convergence of priorities between the two major powers involved.
As Trump noted in a post-summit interview: “It’s good when two big powers get along, especially when they’re nuclear powers. We’re No. 1 and they’re No. 2 in the world.”
There are consistent themes in how both the U.S. and Russia view their actions on the global stage.
One interpretation of their aims could consider the historical context of their imperial pasts.
Countries with imperial histories often have aspirations to reclaim a semblance of their former glory, and the rhetoric employed by both Trump and Putin reflects a desire to restore their respective nations to a perceived greatness.
Observers of Russian politics frequently liken Putin’s ambitions to those of historical figures like Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, suggesting a belief in the need to expand influence into neighboring regions, notably Ukraine.
Conversely, an alternative framework for understanding the actions of both nations is through the lens of hegemony.
Hegemonic powers seek to dominate others not through direct colonization, but via military, economic, and ideological means.
The United States notably exemplifies hegemonic power through its leadership role in NATO, where its influence is pivotal.
In this context, Putin’s ambitions may not entirely encompass imperial aspirations.
Instead, he could aim for a hegemonic arrangement, wherein he is content to have a Ukraine that operates independently but is not aligned with NATO or Western military interests, ensuring it doesn’t pose a threat to Russia.
During the Alaska summit, Putin described Ukraine as a “brotherly nation,” framing the conflict in terms of Russian security rather than an imperialist effort.
However, a significant obstacle for Putin is that the economic and military strength needed to solidify a stable hegemonic position eludes him.
In the absence of robust power, Putin resorts to military force, which has engendered significant humanitarian and economic costs for Russia, resulting in internal dissent and international isolation.
Putin seeks to demonstrate to his populace that the sacrifices incurred by the war yield tangible benefits, possibly through the annexation of contested Ukrainian territories such as Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, in addition to Crimea.
While this territorial ambition projects an imperialistic nature, it remains to be seen if Putin’s aspirations are genuinely about pure conquest or a long-term strategy that accommodates some elements of Ukrainian sovereignty.
The distinction between imperialism and hegemony is significant for peace negotiations.
If Putin’s objectives are imperial—entailing full control over Ukraine—then the possibility of negotiation diminishes drastically.
However, if he envisions a model that permits a non-NATO Ukraine that does not threaten Russia, then a diplomatic compromise becomes conceivable.
The problem lies in whether such an arrangement would be acceptable to Zelenskyy and the broader European powers, who are fundamentally supportive of Ukrainian sovereignty.
Despite the apparent divergence between U.S. and European positions regarding Ukraine’s future, Trump expresses a certain ambivalence toward a Ukraine minimally compliant with Russian interests.
This discrepancy points to a larger challenge in charting a collective path forward—one that does not alienate Ukraine or violate its sovereignty.
Europe and the U.S. struggle to present a united front concerning the war’s final resolution, making the negotiation landscape tumultuous.
While both acknowledge that Russia’s motivations stem from security considerations rather than purely imperialistic designs, some European leaders remain unyielding to the prospect of conceding ground to Putin’s pressures for a rebalancing of military power in east-central Europe.
Trump’s apparent disinterest in a unitary stance on Ukraine may revolve around his ambitions for a peace agreement that could bolster his political legacy, though any sustainable security guarantees would likely require U.S. commitments against future Russian aggressions.
As the war continues, ramifications for both Ukraine and Russia become more pronounced, with the military situation increasingly favoring Russian advances, exacerbated by Trump’s unfixed support for Ukraine.
As philosopher Thucydides posited, the dynamics of power render moral considerations secondary to the realities faced by weaker nations, underscoring an essential truth embedded in international relations theory, specifically realism.
The prolonged conflict raises urgent questions regarding the future of Ukraine, revealing a delicate balance of power that ultimately favors Russian interests amidst ongoing negotiations.
As these geopolitical realities unfold, the prospect of peace in Ukraine may hinge not on the interests of its leaders, but rather on how these larger powers are willing to shape the outcome.
image source from：salon
