Follow us on social

Deal or no deal? Alaska summit ends with vague hints at something

Deal or no deal? Alaska summit ends with vague hints at something

There was no ceasefire, but none of the new sanctions Trump threatened, either. Whether this was a 'win' or 'loss' depends on who you ask

Reporting | Europe

The much anticipated meeting between President Donald Trump and President Putin ended earlier than expected, but the two leaders addressed the press afterwards and appeared amicable while hinting at progress on an "agreement."

But no deal, nor a framework for a deal was announced. They did not take questions afterwards. Trump, who had said earlier that without a ceasefire at the end of the day he might slap Russia with new sanctions, did not go there. If anything they broached the issue of a second meeting. Putin even suggested it could be in Moscow.

"There were many, many points that we agreed on, most of them, I would say, a couple of big ones that we haven't quite gotten there, but we've made some headway. So there's no deal until there's a deal," Trump said in his own statement following the nearly three-hour closed-door meeting that included two members of each delegation in addition to the two leaders (Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and aide Yuri Ushakov for the Russian side; Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff for the U.S.).

“I will call up NATO in a little while. I will call up, the various people that I think are appropriate and, of course, call up (Ukrainian) President (Volodymyr) Zelensky and tell him about today’s meeting. And so ultimately up to them,” he added, noting "we had real progress today."

For his part, Putin recalled shared history between the U.S. and Russia (World War II) and the shared desire to end the war, noting that he and Trump had open lines of communication after relations of the two governments fell to their "lowest point," and that "it's very important for our countries to turn the page to go back to cooperation." He actually referred to an "agreement" while reiterating his longstanding position of what needed to happen before a peace deal was struck.

"We're convinced that in order to, to make the settlement lasting and long term, we need to eliminate all the primary roots, the primary causes of that conflict, and we've said it multiple times, to consider all legitimate concerns of Russia and to reinstate a just balance of security in Europe and in the world on the whole, and agree with President Trump, as he has said today, that naturally, the security of Ukraine should be ensured as well. Naturally, we are prepared to work on that."

"I would like to hope that the agreement that we've reached together will help us bring closer that goal and will pave the path towards peace in Ukraine. We expect that Kyiv and European capitals will perceive that constructively and that they won't throw a wrench in the works," he said. "They will not make any attempts to use some backroom dealings to conduct provocations to torpedo the nascent progress."

So what to make of it? "While the exact results of the summit remain to be seen, Presidents Trump and Putin each gave some indication that the outline of a framework deal to end the war in Ukraine — and substantially improve US-Russia relations — was reached today," said George Beebe, director of the Quincy Institute's Grand Strategy Program. "The next step will be more consultation between the U.S., Ukraine, and Europe about this framework."

Not everyone agreed. Matt Dimmick, the former Russia director for the Office for the Secretary of Defense in the first Trump administration, told Al Jazeera that Trump’s demeanor appeared “subdued" indicating he wasn't thrilled with the outcome of the 3-on-3 meeting. Another meeting that was reportedly to include a larger group including trade representatives of both governments, never transpired.

“The fact that both of them went up, gave brief statements, talked in vague terms and had really no concrete deliverables to discuss with the press, I think, says everything about this particular sit-down,” Dimmick said, adding that Russia will no doubt report it out as a "win."

“I don’t think there’s any argument that the Russians have won just by showing up and having a red carpet rolled out for them."

Mark Episkopos, senior fellow at the Quincy Institute, disagrees that there was no progress to be seen in the entire affair.

"Contrary to those saying 'no deal,' there is cause to believe that the outlines of a framework deal to end the war in Ukraine and substantially improve US-Russia relations were reached today," Episkopos posted on X. "What remains is additional triangulation between the US and Ukr/EU."

Quincy's Anatol Lieven, director of the Eurasia Program, thought it might have been possible for the Trump administration to take home more than that. "Peace talks to end the war are badly needed, and peace talks are almost invariably a long and difficult process that has to begin somewhere," he said.

"But it was a mistake for Trump to hold a summit without 'sherpas' having reached detailed agreement in advance — that is really not how things are usually done, and for good reason, as it makes it look as if Trump has given Putin an escape from diplomatic isolation from the West without getting anything solid in return."


Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks on next to Russian President Vladimir Putin during a press conference following their meeting to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, in Anchorage, Alaska, U.S., August 15, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

Trump Putin

Reporting | Europe
Georgia
Top image credit: An International Women's Day march goes to parliament for women's rights and equality, with the head banner reading ''Women against the regime.'' For the 101st consecutive day of protests, demonstrators block Rustaveli Avenue, demanding the release of political prisoners and new elections, as the Georgian government postpones European Union accession talks until 2028, in Tbilisi, Georgia, on March 8, 2025. (Photo by Jerome Gilles/NurPhoto via REUTERS

Georgia’s choice: The past or the future — not Russia or the West

Europe

As Georgian people think about upcoming local elections scheduled to take place on October 4, they might think about lessons from the past, and how they might shape their future choices.

One of the most inaccurate and unhelpful generalizations Western pundits and politicians make about Georgia is that, under its current government, led by the Georgia Dream party, it has aligned itself with Russia, at the expense of the West.

keep readingShow less
David Milstein
Top image credit: David Milstein speaks during a panel at the 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference. (Screengrab via C-SPAN)

How a little-known embassy aide hijacked US Israel policy

Washington Politics

In late spring of this year, American diplomats in Jerusalem drafted an urgent cable. The war in Gaza, coupled with Israel’s decision in March to block all forms of aid from entering the strip, had left the region on the brink of disaster. A famine was looming, and the U.S. wasn’t doing anything about it.

But that cable never got back to Washington. In fact, it’s not clear whether it even reached the desk of Mike Huckabee, the U.S. ambassador to Israel. In its place, David Milstein — a senior adviser to Huckabee — sent a cable that sounded like “an advertisement for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation,” according to two State Department officials with knowledge of the incident.

keep readingShow less
Proposed war authorization could allow Trump to target 60+ countries
Top image credit: Countries which the US government could militarily intervene in under a potential Authorization ofMilitary Force against 'narco-terrorists.' Via Brett Heinz

Proposed war authorization could allow Trump to target 60+ countries

Global Crises

A draft proposal to authorize the use of U.S. military force against drug cartels is currently floating around Congress and the White House, according to a recent New York Times report. Although an official version of the proposal has yet to be released, publicly available information suggests that it could be used to justify U.S. military intervention in at least 60 countries.

The U.S.-led “War on Drugs” has escalated rapidly over the last month: after the White House signed a secret directive authorizing attacks on Latin American drug cartels, the U.S. built up its military presence in the region and began conducting a series of deadly airstrikes on alleged drug-smuggling civilian boats in the international waters of the Caribbean. Human Rights Watch called the strikes “unlawful extrajudicial killings.”

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.