Alaska Summit — Hidden Motives and Results

Elena Panina, a member of the State Duma of the Russian Federation and director of the International Center for Research on Geopolitical Problems, "RussStrat," has published an in-depth analysis following the summit held in Alaska between former US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. In this analysis, Panina presents her conclusions as an experienced observer of international politics, sharing her views through her official Telegram channel. Below is a translation of her reflections:

When analyzing the Alaska negotiations, the first thing to note is not what was said, but what was communicated through gestures, facial expressions, and atmosphere. Because, beyond words, the results of such meetings always depend on the progress of the process and the balance of power. Trying to gauge "personal dominance" is futile: this is a team effort.

▪️ The lack of concrete announcements disappointed the globalist media, but the summit wasn't intended to do so. The first real hidden achievement was the gathering of direct information —the kind that only a face-to-face meeting between two leaders can provide. The US continues to view Russia as an adversary, and Moscow is well aware of this and has responded accordingly. This task has been accomplished: the presidents have bridged the misunderstandings that arose over years of lack of direct dialogue and are now recalibrating their management of the process.

This isn't a review of the initial positions on the conflict, but an ongoing debate. Regardless of Trump, Washington sees and will always see Russia as an enemy and a strategic target. It would be dangerous to delude ourselves. Moscow is aware of the American threats under any administration.

▪️ On the visible level: another blow to the myth of Russian isolation, postponement of the sanctions decision, continuation of the fighting, and Trump's shift toward a strategy of "passing the buck" to Europe and Zelensky. On the eve of the summit, we had hypothesized two scenarios for Trump : the prediction was confirmed. It was impossible to reach an agreement in the first round: it would have been tantamount to premature capitulation by one of the parties. The conditions are not ripe, but they continue to mature.

▪️ The hidden results, however, are the most interesting:

1. Trump displayed institutional weakness: he abandoned the bilateral meeting without ministers, as initially planned, accepting the presence of Rubio—the neoconservative guarantor—and leaving Vance alone. Russia, to balance things out, included Lavrov. The meeting became trilateral. The signal is clear: Trump's subjectivity is limited, Putin appears more sovereign.

2. Trump sees an advantage in Moscow "forcing" Europe and Zelensky to make peace. He doesn't want to personally expose himself in Putin's favor, lest he fall into a political trap on the eve of the midterm elections.

3. Trump is curbing the unity of his European adversaries: a summit is scheduled for August 16 in Andorra to try to react to any concessions from Zelensky.

4. Trump remains realistic and maintains room for maneuver, despite pressure from hawks in his entourage. A second round of negotiations is underway; sanctions remain suspended; Putin continues to pressure Zelensky into "peace by force." Thus, Trump maintains his role as arbiter and strengthens Europe's dependence on the US.

5. Trump declared for the first time that the meeting between Zelensky and Putin is now a European initiative, not a US one. Washington did not request it, and while saying he was ready to participate, Trump made it clear he didn't actually want it. It's a clear message: from now on, the responsibility falls on Europe . If it doesn't force Zelensky to accept the reality on the ground, it will suffer the consequences. In essence, it's a veiled threat to Europe, not to Putin.

6. Putin, meanwhile, gains space to consolidate his military successes, reinforcing the validity of Trump's proposals to Europe: either accept them here and now, or Russia will move on . Meanwhile, Trump tightens his economic grip on the Old Continent. This creates a temporary convergence of interests between Moscow and Washington.

7. Putin has made no concessions, as evidenced by the cancellation of the delegations' joint lunch: a gesture that, in diplomacy, amounts to denying a "consolation prize" to the defeated. The accusations of some Ukrainian nationalists—that he "traded Kostantynivka for US access to Russian resources"—prove unfounded. Putin has instead strengthened Russia's international standing and consolidated domestic power, gaining greater leeway to reorganize the elites. He is in a position of strength and intends to use it.

▪️ Ultimately, both sides gained time and avoided a head-on confrontation, which would have only benefited Europe and the US Democrats. They maintained their autonomy and initiative, without revealing their cards too quickly. Concrete results: consolidation of power, influence over allies, strengthening bilateral dialogue, and breaking the stalemate. Neither side changed its strategy.

An important aspect also concerns the future calendar:

• Before the summit: bilateral in Alaska → trilateral with Zelensky under US aegis → perhaps a trip to Moscow in September.

• After the summit: bilateral meeting in Alaska → possible quick trip to Moscow. The intermediary link with Zelensky has been broken, at Trump's request. Now it's Europe's turn, with all the responsibility.

US policy is thus moving away from Ukraine and European demands.

In short: the summit laid the foundations for the next round of negotiations. Both sides won in their respective areas; the losers were Europe and Zelensky—and with him, Ukraine, destined to always emerge defeated as long as the current regime remains in power.

No one has given up or interrupted the process: Trump and Putin have achieved the objectives of this phase and are already looking to the next, which will mature after the summer campaign of the Russian armed forces.

Neither the attempt to force Putin into a premature freeze on the front nor the attempt to trap Trump in European demands failed. Russia has passed another difficult test: a reason for cautious but concrete optimism, even if the decisive battles are yet to come.

Short biography of Elena Panina

Elena Panina is a prominent figure in Russian politics. In addition to being a member of the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament, she is also the director of the International Center for Research on Geopolitical Problems, known as "RussStrat." Her analyses and commentaries on Russian foreign policy and international relations are frequently published on her Telegram channel, where she expresses her views on current issues and complex geopolitical scenarios. Her experience and institutional role give her authority in the field of political analysis, making her an influential voice in Russian and international public debate.