The forthcoming summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin is stirring significant debate, not only due to the high-profile nature of the meeting but also concerning its unusual location—Alaska.
The choice of Alaska as the venue has rallied support among Putin’s ultranationalist allies, who view it as a symbolic nod to their long-standing revanchist ambitions regarding the former Russian territory.
Historically, Alaska was sold to the United States by Russia in 1867 for $7.2 million, a figure that would equate to around $192 million today.
For many years, Russian ultranationalists have criticized this transaction and have called for the return of Alaska, viewing it as a significant loss for Russia.
Following the announcement of the summit, social media platforms saw an influx of posts from Putin’s supporters asserting claims over Alaska, reflecting the ultranationalists’ aspirations.
Kirill A Dmitriev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund and a Special Envoy of Putin, has actively shared numerous photographs of Russian Orthodox churches in Alaska, coupled with historical documents to reinforce Russia’s connections to the region.
“Born as Russian America—Orthodox roots, forts, fur trade—Alaska echoes those ties and makes the US an Arctic nation.
Let’s partner on environment, infrastructure & energy in Arctic and beyond,” Dmitriev posted on X, showcasing the intertwining histories.
Commentators are wary that such rhetoric could serve as a precursor to a more aggressive approach to reclaim the territory, akin to the previous justifications Russia used for military actions in Georgia and Ukraine.
“Aug. 15 Putin-Trump summit falls on Dormition (Catholics: Assumption)—a day honoring Mary’s peaceful ‘falling asleep’.
Alaska’s Orthodox Church has Russian roots.
Whatever your belief, the feast points to mercy and reconciliation—choose dialogue, choose peace,” Dmitriev also remarked in his X posts.
These sentiments have not gone unnoticed; political commentator David Frum expressed his concern humorously, stating, “Let’s all hope that Putin doesn’t ask to take Alaska home with him as a souvenir, or Trump might give that away too.”
Michael McFaul, a former US ambassador to Russia, also weighed in by saying, “Trump has chosen to host Putin in a part of the former Russian Empire.
Wonder if he knows that Russian nationalists claim that losing Alaska, like Ukraine, was a raw deal for Moscow that needs to be corrected.”
Adding to this conversation, author and commentator Julia Davis criticized the decision to host Putin in Alaska, pointing out the audacity of the situation given that Putin’s propagandists routinely assert claims to Alaska on Russian state TV.
“Trump inviting war criminal Putin to America is nauseating enough, but hosting him in Alaska — while Putin’s pet propagandists routinely demand it back from the US on state TV — is beyond the pale.
Unless Putin is arrested upon arrival, there’s no excuse,” Davis stated.
John Bolton, who previously served as Trump’s National Security Advisor, remarked that the summit location could be perceived as a substantial victory for Putin.
“The only place worse for a summit could be Moscow.
So the initial setup, I think, is a great victory for Putin,” Bolton told CNN, expressing concern over the implications of such a venue.
In the context of US-Russia relations, the summit marks a complex scenario, particularly as it is occurring while Putin disregards a ceasefire deadline purportedly aimed at alleviating tensions.
Ruth Deyermond, a senior lecturer in war studies at Kings College, London, emphasized that summits have historically been reflective of the level of approval or disapproval between American presidents and their Russian counterparts.
“Trump is, once again, signalling the value he places on Putin’s friendship.
It’s a profound humiliation for the US.
For Trump to announce a summit—the traditional US reward for friendly Russian presidents—with Putin on the day he had indicated would be the deadline for announcing action to punish Russian aggression is an extraordinary move.
It’s an unambiguous signal of alignment with Russia,” Deyermond elaborated.
The historical context of Russia selling Alaska to the US highlights the complexities of territorial control and national identity.
At the time of the sale, Russian rulers were wary of the British in Canada and found the territorial governance of Alaska burdensome.
Thus, they considered US control a safer alternative to potential military loss to the British.
As the summit approaches, the geopolitical implications of its location in Alaska linger in the air, leaving many observers anxious about what this meeting could entail both for US-Russia relations and the future of Alaska.
image source from：firstpost
