Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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

google cta
Reporting | Europe
Trump's war is a gift to Iran’s hardliners
REUTERS/Imran Ali

Shi'ite Muslims hold posters of Iran's new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, alongside late Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as they take part in the religious procession marking the death anniversary of Imam Ali, son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad, during the fasting month of Ramadan, in Karachi, Pakistan, March 11, 2026.

Trump's war is a gift to Iran’s hardliners

Middle East

When the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28 — an escalation that has already brought new suffering and uncertainty to millions of ordinary Iranians — the central debate quickly turned to whether the Islamic Republic might collapse. Some analysts argued that decapitating Iran’s leadership could produce rapid regime change, perhaps resembling the leadership removal in Venezuela earlier this year. Others warned that Iran’s political system was far more resilient.

Yet the more important point may lie elsewhere. Given the Islamic Republic’s internal dynamics, war could produce the opposite of what many expect. Rather than weakening the regime, the war may strengthen its most committed supporters — the ideological networks often labeled “hardliners” in Western media — while marginalizing the broader political middle, inside and outside the system, that favors non-violent and gradual change.

keep readingShow less
As Iran war rages, Washington opens a new front in Ecuador
Top image credit: Ecuadoran security forces patrol the streets of Manta, Ecuador. (IMAGO/Agencia Prensa-Independiente via Reuters Connect)

As Iran war rages, Washington opens a new front in Ecuador

Latin America

As the world’s attention is focused on the U.S. and Israeli war on Iran, the United States has, with little fanfare, opened another front in its expanding campaign against so-called “narco-terrorism” in the Western Hemisphere.

Since this new "war on drugs" began last year, U.S. military strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats, as well as a direct military intervention in Venezuela, have claimed the lives of more than 250 people. Now, Ecuador, a country on the northwestern edge of South America, has become the latest site of Washington’s reinvigorated “war on drugs.” This escalation risks making the United States complicit in the human rights abuses of a government that is steadily dismantling its own country’s democracy, including by suspending the nation’s largest opposition party.

keep readingShow less
Israel’s push for Somaliland base raises fears of wider war
Top image credit: Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar and Somaliland President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi participate in a joint press conference during Saar's visit to Somaliland on January 6, 2026. (Screengrab via X)

Israel’s push for Somaliland base raises fears of wider war

QiOSK

Bloomberg reported Wednesday that Israel is in talks with Somaliland officials to form a strategic security partnership, which might include granting Israel access to a military base or other security installation along the Somaliland coast from which it can launch attacks against Yemen’s Houthi rebels.

With war raging in the Middle East, the Horn of Africa is a particularly important geoeconomic and geopolitical puzzle piece. Its location near the Bab el-Mandeb strait, which connects ships traveling through the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean, makes it a strategic location from the perspective of global shipping, 10% to 12% of which travels through the strait annually.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.