The Alaska summit: winners, losers and those in between

So Alaska ended much as we foreshadowed: no deal. But ‘no deal’ doesn’t mean ’empty-handed’. Here’s a quick tally of the ‘wins’ each side is now claiming (agree or not).

• 🇷🇺 What did Putin win?

Putin’s arguable wins fall into three categories: perception, isolation, and negotiation:

On the perception front, Kremlin propagandists argue that in a single afternoon, Putin shrugged off years of Western pressure to instead take a ride in a US presidential limo and stride along a US red carpet (laid by US servicemembers on their knees).

On the isolation front, critics say this unwound years of isolation since Putin’s invasion, undermining ICC arrest warrants while paving the way for others to re-engage too.

And as for the actual negotiations? Folks argue Putin’s wins include:

• First, no new sanctions, months after President Trump’s peace-or-sanctions threat: Secretary of State Rubio is now arguing any new sanctions would be proof talks have failed, rather than (say) a tool to shape Putin’s approach to those talks.
• Second, no ceasefire, months after President Trump’s ceasefire demands: he’s now suggesting talks should focus on a full peace (not ceasefire) deal. His envoy (Witkoff) frames this as a Trump win, citing positive progress. But others frame this pivot as a Putin win, because it means a) Ukraine must still negotiate with Putin’s gun to its head, and b) it hints at Putin’s continued “pervoprichiny” (root causes) demands, including for Ukraine’s “de-Nazification” (oust Kyiv’s elected government), “de-militarization” (gut its military), and “neutralisation” (stop Kyiv from seeking outside help).
• Third, no territorial concessions: details are still emerging, and Witkoff says Putin made concessions, though these still seem to relate to Ukraine’s own land, while demanding Ukraine hand over its own heavily fortified cities in the east — locals fear Putin would just use them as a launchpad for future attacks on a Ukraine presumably wracked with political strife over such massive concessions.

Meanwhile…

• 🇺🇸 What did President Trump win?

Trump’s arguable wins fit the same categories: perception, isolation, and negotiation:

On perception, supporters say the US president flexed US strength by startling Putin with a sudden B2 flyover as he walked past F-22 Raptors. That, combined with the event’s “Pursuing Peace” signage (plus a personal appeal from the First Lady), all reflected the president’s peace through strength mantra.

On the isolation front, the idea is if years of icing Putin haven’t stopped the war, re-engagement is worth a shot. And that brings scrutiny, like when a US reporter shouted out if Putin would stop killing civilians (Putin didn’t answer).

Then there’s the negotiation: the president’s initial tweets didn’t reveal much, but his top envoys (Witkoff and Rubio) are now suggesting Putin might’ve shown openness to…

• First, a US security guarantee for Ukraine? Witkoff suggests it’d be like NATO’s article 5 (an attack on one is an attack on all), which Europe has long wanted as a way to prevent more Putin attacks. But Putin has always rejected a NATO guarantee, so this lesser (US and maybe European) version is doing the rounds as a possible compromise.
• Second, a European-led ‘reassurance’ force for Ukraine? This idea is also resurfacing, with European troops potentially adding to any US-backed guarantees, though details remain scant beyond possible Trump backing.
• Third, a Russian commitment not to invade again? Witkoff is flagging the possibility Russia could pass a law pledging no further attacks. Aside from what such a pledge would be worth (Putin has already broken several by invading Ukraine), and the obvious loopholes (Putin has passed laws to, say, redefine Ukrainian land as his own, and abolish term limits), this idea seems aimed at Ukraine, which has always rejected land concessions in part because they’re banned in its constitution: so Putin is arguing “if we can amend our laws, you can amend yours”.

Anyway, President Trump is hinting at big progress as he prepares for today’s last-minute summit with Ukraine plus the UK, Italy, Germany, France, Finland, the EU, and NATO.

Intrigue’s Take

There’s been real shock in Europe over the weekend, as it digests what it sees as a US pivot back to aligning more with Putin’s perspectives. The cigar-chomping capitalists at the UK’s Financial Times, for example, described Friday’s summit as an “embarrassing failure“.

The UK’s defence ministry also came out with a remarkable intelligence update, directly pushing back on Putin’s vast territorial claims by noting that, at his current rate, Putin would need another four years (and a million more casualties) just to seize the four Ukrainian provinces he’s already claiming as his own.

And that reminds us of the old George Shultz quote: “negotiations are a euphemism for capitulation if the shadow of power is not cast across the bargaining table.” Why? First, because the US isn’t yet casting its own full shadow (eg, it’s still withholding further sanctions and arms). But second, because Putin’s own shadow isn’t as big as he’d like us to believe.

Sound even smarter:

• President Trump has pushed back on any suggestion Putin could claim wins in Alaska, though has now reiterated calls for Ukraine (not Putin) to end this war.
• Talk of any new US security guarantees is reviving debate in Ukraine about the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, via which Ukraine agreed to hand over the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal (inherited from the USSR) in return for US-UK (and Russian) security promises.