Background and Context
In Alaska, Putin was the manipulator and Trump the manipulated. The summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin was presented as a step towards peace in Ukraine. Prior to the meeting, various scenarios were anticipated, ranging from a minimal ceasefire agreement to broader concessions to Moscow. Ultimately, the most probable outcome prevailed: Trump accepting that Ukraine relinquish 20% of its territory, occupied or not by Russia.
Visual Contrast and Body Language
The way both leaders descended from their planes foreshadowed the outcome. Putin, swift and energetic, with a forward gaze, exuded control. Trump, on the other hand, slow and cautious with each step, projected insecurity. The visual contrast, reinforced by the warm handshake and Trump’s enthusiastic applause upon receiving Putin, solidified the narrative of a Trump trailing behind the Russian dictator.
The prolonged, smiling greeting transcended mere protocol. For Trump, it was an illusion of showcasing himself as a strong mediator; for Putin, a calculated move to establish parity on American soil. The location was no coincidence either: in 1867, Russia sold Alaska to the U.S., and the memory of that loss remains alive in Kremlin’s narrative.
Substance and Outcomes
Beyond the spectacle, there was substance: a victory for Russia and a failure for the U.S. The summit yielded neither ceasefire nor verifiable commitments. Trump, who boasted of closing deals in minutes, left empty-handed after a three-hour meeting. He had promised severe sanctions if Putin refused to end the war, but afterward, he didn’t mention them. Instead, Trump aligned with Russia’s narrative: declaring that the conflict should end not with a simple ceasefire but with a “peace agreement” addressing Moscow’s demands, including the definitive loss of 20% of Ukraine’s territory.
The contrast between the leaders was not overlooked. A Ukrainian analyst quoted by Al Jazeera described the summit as “a masterclass on how a former intelligence officer manipulates a narcissistic egomaniac.” By praising Putin, offering an exaggerated handshake, and adopting Putin’s script for the deal, Trump exposed his weakness in front of a man deemed a war criminal by the International Criminal Court. The control Putin exerts over Trump was evident in Alaska, with consequences extending beyond the Ukraine conflict.
Irony and Implications
The irony is inescapable. Trump vowed to end the war within his first 24 hours in office, yet 5,080 days later, the war persists. There have been no sanctions, agreements, or results. The self-proclaimed “great negotiator” was reduced to a mere pawn: in Alaska, Putin was the manipulator and Trump the manipulated.
Even U.S. Senator Marco Rubio implied American impotence by stating that if peace is not possible, “only the war will continue.” This suggests Putin holds the power to decide when and how the war he initiated will end.
Key Questions and Answers
- Q: What was the purpose of the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska? A: The meeting aimed to bring peace to Ukraine, but it resulted in no concrete agreements or commitments.
- Q: How did the body language of Trump and Putin reflect their relationship during the summit? A: Putin appeared confident and in control, while Trump seemed hesitant and cautious, suggesting Putin’s dominance.
- Q: What did Trump ultimately agree to regarding Ukraine’s territory? A: Trump accepted Russia’s demand for Ukraine to relinquish 20% of its territory, occupied or not by Russia.
- Q: How did the summit impact Ukraine and its European allies? A: Trump abandoned Ukraine and its European allies, giving Putin a green light for future aggressions, potentially against non-former Soviet countries.
- Q: What does the outcome of this summit imply about Trump’s ability to handle international relations? A: The summit exposed Trump’s weakness in dealing with Putin, who was portrayed as the manipulator and Trump as the manipulated.
Facebook: Eduardo J Ruiz-Healy
Instagram: ruizhealy
Website: ruizhealytimes.com
