Speculation is high regarding the US-Russia meeting scheduled for Friday in Anchorage. The looming question remains: will Ukraine be a part of the conversation, or merely a point of contention?
Analysts are keenly observing what leverage, if any, the US will employ to extract concessions from Russia while rewarding compliance.
Additionally, the ongoing efforts by European leaders to voice their perspectives have been described as frantic and belated. The outcomes of this meeting could range dramatically, from a diplomatic walkout to a significant sellout of interests.
Among the clear winners emerging from this process is the Chinese Communist Party, which, despite not being invited to the negotiations, continues to be a prominent factor in the discussions.
While Beijing disapproves of Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine, it is even less favorable to the prospect of a Russian defeat. As a result, the CCP has maintained its support for the Putin regime, allowing Russia to continue its military operations while simultaneously keeping a check on nuclear threats.
This dynamic has positioned China as a significant power-broker in the Eurasian landscape, a development that many would have deemed unimaginable merely a decade ago.
On the other hand, the Kremlin appears to be shedding its long-standing status as a pariah. Instead of facing legal repercussions for his actions in Ukraine, President Putin is expected to be treated as a VIP upon his arrival on American soil.
This scenario echoes the era of the diplomatic “reset” initiated by President Barack Obama, when the relationship with Russia was touted as promising under Dmitry Medvedev.
However, the implications of this meeting extend beyond cordial relations. There are mounting concerns that Western nations are now less secure than ever before.
Multilateral organizations that were designed to safeguard regional security, such as the European Union and NATO, have been rendered largely ineffective.
Questions about the significance of these bodies arise, particularly given the discussions surrounding potential territorial exchanges between Ukraine and Russia, highlighting failures at the institutional level.
Another casualty of the current geopolitical climate is international law, especially concerning the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Budapest Memorandum of 1994, which sought to reduce nuclear weapons globally, is now in jeopardy.
The failure of the US, Britain, France, and China to hold Russia accountable for its violations raises alarms about the efficacy of such agreements. If countries perceive that nuclear weapon agreements are void, there may be little incentive to disarm.
Furthermore, this could embolden nations to pursue nuclear capabilities as a protective measure against blackmail, undermining global peace efforts and stirring memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s solemn anniversaries.
Underlying all of this is the urgent question of how to bring an end to hostilities in Ukraine, along with a call for comprehensive monitoring and enforcement strategies.
It remains uncertain if solutions will be articulated during the summit in Alaska this week, yet it compels a reevaluation of broader questions regarding future conflicts.
Historical reflections reveal that the West had ample opportunities to counter Russia, particularly during the early 1990s.
Regrettably, the unified transatlantic approach faltered over time due to inaction and complacency. Late responses and divided political will in Western governments have also contributed to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
As European leaders respond to President Donald Trump’s recent moves, many must wonder where their assertiveness has been throughout this unfolding crisis.
image source from：cepa
