A recent one-on-one meeting between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage has sparked concern regarding U.S. foreign policy and its implications on global security. Despite the optimism projected in the aftermath, the realities of the meeting offer a more troubling narrative, revealing significant strategic risks not just for Ukraine but for Europe and East Asia as well.
The Anchorage summit was marked by superficial pleasantries and an image of cooperation, symbolized by Putin’s red carpet welcome at a U.S. military base. However, it brought no concrete outcomes—no ceasefire, binding commitments, or even a plan to address Russia’s territorial gains in Ukraine.
This series of meetings began with Trump’s personal diplomacy, culminating in a gathering with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European allies just days later. While MAGA supporters heralded this as a diplomatic triumph, the absence of Zelenskyy at the earlier meeting raises questions about the legitimacy of any proposed compromises involving Ukrainian territory.
The discussion of “security guarantees” for Ukraine during the White House meeting was vague at best. Talk of NATO Article 5-like assurances was present, but without any concrete commitments of U.S. boots-on-the-ground support. Instead, there were suggestions floated about territorial adjustments proposed by Russia, framing these concessions as part of a broader peace framework.
The risks emanating from this diplomatic theater are multifaceted. First, the optics of the summit appeared to rehabilitate Putin’s image as a global leader, effectively rewarding his aggressive actions in Ukraine rather than imposing necessary sanctions. This perception of normalization weakens the West’s ability to apply punitive measures against Russia.
Second, providing security guarantees without credible enforcement creates a dangerous precedent. A lack of demonstrable willingness to deploy forces could embolden further aggression from Russia, effectively undermining deterrence strategies that have historically been pivotal in international relations.
Moreover, Ukraine finds itself in an existential crisis, as the pressure to negotiate while continuing to battle against Russian forces undermines its position. Such negotiations conducted
image source from：manilatimes
