The Summit That Sidelined Ukraine

Last week, President Trump hosted Putin in Anchorage, and the world watched for a sign of peace in a war that lasted over 3 years. Instead, the summit only lasted three hours, and ended in Ukraine being on the sidelines, and Putin returning to Moscow "with an air of triumph." The meeting crystallized a familiar story of the U.S. bending towards autocrats.

For Trump, the goal doesn't seem to be peace at all. Instead, it seems to be just stringing up a ceasefire deal as quickly as possible, so he can get a peace prize. NBC News reports that "Trump and his aides are intensifying a public campaign to snag the award, citing a string of peace deals while making a case that snubbing him again would be an injustice." The goal of our foreign policy isn't protecting lives, it's getting our president an award. In fact, when India pointed out that the ceasefire between them and Pakistan wasn't orchestrated by Trump, we reversed 20 years of progress working with India, imposing drastic tariffs. As a result, Modi is now visiting India for the first time in years. For Putin, a path forward seems simple. Create a ceasefire on biased terms so Trump is happy, then start the war again after Trump gets the prize to claim more territory.

The absence of Ukraine at the meeting was not coincidental; it was by design. President Zelensky was told by Trump after the summit that Putin only wanted more of Ukraine and that Kyiv would have to accept a tough future. Negotiating the fate of a sovereign nation without its presence at the table evokes scenes of 20th-century appeasement.

So what occurred at the summit? Well, very little. No ceasefire emerged, and Trump seemed to pivot from an immediate end to the war to a "broader peace framework instead," not explaining what this would entail. For his goals of the peace prize, the framework is likely capitulation of territory. At the meeting, Putin refused to budge on territorial gains in Donetsk and Luhansk, territories Zelenskyy has maintained should always be considered Ukrainian land.

The topics, however, seemed to favor Moscow. In Russia, Putin was celebrated for holding his ground. In contrast, Trump's performance was criticized as deferential and showed an image of an American president bowing to an authority and failing to defend democracy. As Senator Chris Murphy put it, the summit looked more like "a photo-op for Putin than a step towards peace," and that the summit "legitimizes war crimes." Towards our allies, the summit sends the signal that we are not committed to peace.

The promise of "security guarantees" for Ukraine doesn't seem to be of substance. While parties in the admin, such as envoy Steve Witkoff, claimed that the summit was "game-changing," and Senator Rubio claimed that "both Russia and Ukraine must make concessions." Yet, these statements were not based on facts. They provided the illusion of progress, while at the summit, not a inch of Ukrainian land was protected.

For Ukrainians themselves, the meeting was devastating. Despite claims that Ukraine would be protected, refugees interviewed by The Times of London expressed despair about the fact that decisions about their homeland were being made without them, with them describing the summit as a betrayal and just another broken promise. The voices of the people that matter most aren't being protected.

While the U.S. and Russia left Anchorage without any agreement, Ukraine sees in the chaos that unfolded an opening to rally international support due to American failures. For Europe, the need to double down on alliances and defense is only increasing. In the end, the Alaska summit won't be remembered for what it achieved, but what it revealed about our government. It shows that American diplomatic goals, in the lands of leaders concerned more about their optics than protecting global justice, can drift towards appeasement.