The Alaska Summit: 'You Can't Negotiate With a Lion When Your Head Is Inside Its Jaws'
Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system
Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features
SUBSCRIBE TODAY
On August 15, 2025, in the city of Anchorage, Alaska, on the territory of a U.S. Army military base, a Russia-U.S. summit took place, which many journalists have already dubbed the "Alaska Summit." The key topic of the meeting was the resolution of the military conflict in Ukraine. However, a significant number of analysts initially did not expect any political breakthrough regarding the Russian-Ukrainian war.
And this is quite understandable: although the war was officially at the center of attention, for most observers it was clear that the event was rather symbolic in nature, typical of modern political technology. What mattered more was the very fact of the meeting, its setting, the chance to outmaneuver one another in subtle diplomatic details, to provide the press with polished photographs, to utter the "right" words, to pull Putin closer during a handshake, and many other gestures - while at the same time offering no real mechanisms for a ceasefire or for achieving a just peace settlement.
This performative symbolism was visible from the very beginning. The summit was not thoroughly prepared; it was organised hastily, without serious preliminary consultations, which in itself looked like yet another political trick by the Trump administration.
Earlier, Trump had threatened Moscow with harsh sanctions if, within ten days, there were not at least some formal prospects for a peace agreement in the war in Ukraine. In essence, this was an ultimatum issued by Washington to somehow demonstrate determination and showcase the activity of American diplomacy. But in reality, it only cornered the White House, because behind such loud statements, there were no real levers of influence.
For Putin, this meeting was not a platform for negotiations, but above all an instrument of political legitimisation. On the one hand, it was an opportunity to show the world that he is still being received, that he is capable of holding dialogue on equal terms with the President of the United States, despite the warrant of the International Criminal Court and his de facto political isolation.
On the other hand, it was a signal to his close circle and his domestic audience: "I am still capable of something, I am still being taken seriously, and I remain a figure of international stature." For Putin, this is no less important than the war itself, because in the Russian system of power, personal demonstrations of strength and "handshake-worthiness" are often valued more highly than any real diplomatic results.
Inside the Collapse: How Putin's Russia Turned Its Opponents into Exiles
There is a deliberate policy by the Kremlin to exile, neutralise, and effectively erase alternative political life within the country, reports Denis Mikhailov
Denis Mikhailov
The Aspirations of the United States
From the very start of his presidential campaign, Donald Trump tirelessly repeated that he could end the war in Ukraine "in just one day" once he became president. He insisted that he possessed special mechanisms of influence over the parties to the conflict, that he knew the "secret levers," and that he would act in ways no previous American leader had been able to.
These bold claims sounded impressive during the election race, but from the moment of his election and inauguration, reality proved entirely different. Neither in the first 100 days nor afterwards did the situation shift even an inch. On the contrary, at times, tensions between Kyiv and Washington reached unprecedented levels.
At one point, Trump's inner circle even discussed the possibility of reducing - and eventually completely cutting - military aid to Ukraine. For Kyiv, this looked like a stab in the back, while for Moscow, it was a long-awaited signal of Western weakness and fatigue. And then, shortly before the summit itself, Trump once a...
Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features
SUBSCRIBE TODAY
On August 15, 2025, in the city of Anchorage, Alaska, on the territory of a U.S. Army military base, a Russia-U.S. summit took place, which many journalists have already dubbed the "Alaska Summit." The key topic of the meeting was the resolution of the military conflict in Ukraine. However, a significant number of analysts initially did not expect any political breakthrough regarding the Russian-Ukrainian war.
And this is quite understandable: although the war was officially at the center of attention, for most observers it was clear that the event was rather symbolic in nature, typical of modern political technology. What mattered more was the very fact of the meeting, its setting, the chance to outmaneuver one another in subtle diplomatic details, to provide the press with polished photographs, to utter the "right" words, to pull Putin closer during a handshake, and many other gestures - while at the same time offering no real mechanisms for a ceasefire or for achieving a just peace settlement.
This performative symbolism was visible from the very beginning. The summit was not thoroughly prepared; it was organised hastily, without serious preliminary consultations, which in itself looked like yet another political trick by the Trump administration.
Earlier, Trump had threatened Moscow with harsh sanctions if, within ten days, there were not at least some formal prospects for a peace agreement in the war in Ukraine. In essence, this was an ultimatum issued by Washington to somehow demonstrate determination and showcase the activity of American diplomacy. But in reality, it only cornered the White House, because behind such loud statements, there were no real levers of influence.
For Putin, this meeting was not a platform for negotiations, but above all an instrument of political legitimisation. On the one hand, it was an opportunity to show the world that he is still being received, that he is capable of holding dialogue on equal terms with the President of the United States, despite the warrant of the International Criminal Court and his de facto political isolation.
On the other hand, it was a signal to his close circle and his domestic audience: "I am still capable of something, I am still being taken seriously, and I remain a figure of international stature." For Putin, this is no less important than the war itself, because in the Russian system of power, personal demonstrations of strength and "handshake-worthiness" are often valued more highly than any real diplomatic results.
Inside the Collapse: How Putin's Russia Turned Its Opponents into Exiles
There is a deliberate policy by the Kremlin to exile, neutralise, and effectively erase alternative political life within the country, reports Denis Mikhailov
Denis Mikhailov
The Aspirations of the United States
From the very start of his presidential campaign, Donald Trump tirelessly repeated that he could end the war in Ukraine "in just one day" once he became president. He insisted that he possessed special mechanisms of influence over the parties to the conflict, that he knew the "secret levers," and that he would act in ways no previous American leader had been able to.
These bold claims sounded impressive during the election race, but from the moment of his election and inauguration, reality proved entirely different. Neither in the first 100 days nor afterwards did the situation shift even an inch. On the contrary, at times, tensions between Kyiv and Washington reached unprecedented levels.
At one point, Trump's inner circle even discussed the possibility of reducing - and eventually completely cutting - military aid to Ukraine. For Kyiv, this looked like a stab in the back, while for Moscow, it was a long-awaited signal of Western weakness and fatigue. And then, shortly before the summit itself, Trump once a...
Activity