The Alaska summit held on August 15 has emerged as a significant event in international relations, marking critical shifts in the global landscape.
This summit was not just a diplomatic gathering, but a pivotal moment that exposed and amplified existing fault lines within the international system, particularly between nuclear powers, the U.S. and Russia.
Unlike the Cold War era, when the two superpowers faced off as the primary poles of global politics, today’s meeting had a different context.
In this instance, Russia and the U.S. engaged in discussions aimed at normalization, attempting to alleviate the political isolation that had been imposed on Russia due to its actions in Ukraine.
The summit’s key focus was on the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, but it also touched upon the state of trans-Atlantic relations, revealing the fragility of the current international order.
Both leaders emerged from the meeting with a ‘win-win’ perspective: President Donald Trump bolstered his image as a peacemaker, while Russia found strategic gains by breaking its isolation from the West.
However, it is crucial to note the absence of Ukraine from discussions that revolved around its territories, raising questions about the legitimacy of the outcomes.
The Alaska summit also set the stage for subsequent high-stakes meetings, notably involving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other European leaders, which have reignited debates over global power balance.
This brings us to the core principle of statehood and sovereignty in international relations, originally rooted in the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, establishing the ideal of sovereign equality among states.
Despite normative frameworks like the United Nations Charter emphasizing this principle, historical complexities continue to challenge the validity of sovereign equality, particularly within an anarchic international system.
With President Donald Trump’s re-election, the developments after the Alaska summit confirm a reality where great powers hold decisive influence, often overshadowing the principle of equal sovereignty.
The summit’s focus on the U.S. and Russia at the expense of Europe and Ukraine signifies a breakdown within the global system, reflecting Trump’s hierarchical interpretation of power by marginalizing other actors.
European leaders emerged as ‘secondary actors’ within this newfound order, as evidenced by their subsequent visits to Washington following the summit.
In contrast, Russia positioned itself as a challenger to this hegemonic framework, effectively acting as a ‘disruptive balancer.’
These dynamics at Alaska highlight the vulnerability of smaller and medium-sized states within a world shaped by overarching power hierarchies despite the proclaimed commitment to sovereign equality since the Westphalia era.
The summit can be likened not to a new Yalta but rather to the Munich Agreement or the ‘percentages agreement,’ where major players delineated their spheres of influence without the participation of those directly affected.
This indicates a shift toward a new type of realpolitik emerging in the 21st century, where geopolitical power struggles are reshaping cooperation and alliances in unexpected ways.
Trump’s engagement with Putin at the summit manifested this realignment, raising concern over discussions reminiscent of historical compromises regarding territorial claims, similar to the proposed exchanges during the Munich Agreement.
As U.S.-Russia relations thawed during the talks in Alaska, they also revealed potential new sources of conflict, underscoring the complex reality of power dynamics today.
The meeting on August 18 between Zelenskyy and Trump saw European leaders striving to maintain their security framework amid an increasingly fractured global order.
While they sought to reinforce their strength against Russian aggression through U.S. support, there were underlying tensions regarding the longevity of support for Ukraine and the trajectory of the conflict.
Ultimately, a crucial question remains: does Europe possess the resolve or capability to sustain its position independently, similar to Ukraine’s situation?
The Alaska summit served as a litmus test, exposing the fragile nature of alliances and the persistence of security dilemmas rooted in historical conflicts, exemplified by Europe’s past relations with Russia.
The recent events echo policies from a century ago, challenging the sustainability and acceptability of proposed peace efforts.
As diplomatic relations evolve in this new context, the dynamics at play illustrate that when power hierarchies converge with national interests, the prospects for peace and balance shift accordingly.
image source from：dailysabah
