From Argumenty i fakty, Aug. 20, 2025, p. 3. Complete text:
Editors’ Note. – What consequences will the summit between the Russian and US presidents have for bilateral relations and the world, peace and peace on earth? AiF spoke about this with political analyst, historian and first vice-president of the Center for Political Technologies Aleksei Makarkin.
* * *
What is Trump after?
Question. – Aleksei Vladimirovich [Makarkin], on the eve of the negotiations in Alaska, Trump compared them to a game of chess. And now Western media are writing that Putin won it, that the very fact of such a summit is a triumph for him.Do you agree?
Answer. – I don’t think that this really is a chess game. By making this comparison, Trump may have wanted to cover his bases: If something goes wrong, it’s no big deal, it’s just a game. But if we talk about who won, then for Russia this summit was, of course, a success. Trump expressed his desire to continue the dialogue, did not announce new sanctions and did not rule out a reciprocal visit to Moscow.
Q. – It is clear that Alaska did not and could not become the “new Yalta,” as many would have liked.But has it become the “new Geneva”? In Geneva 40 years ago, [US president Ronald] Reagan and [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev took the first step toward ending the cold war, although they did not formally conclude any agreements [see Vol. 37, No. 47, pp. 2-4].
A. – The leadership of the USSR was interested in a “deal” with the US, to use Trump’s language, because the situation in the Soviet economy in the second half of the 1980s was very difficult. But in the eyes of the current Russian government, this does not justify Gorbachev’s actions and his willingness to make concessions to Washington. The foreign policy of that time is today considered rather a negative example, an example of retreat and surrender.
And it is incorrect to compare Trump with Reagan, even though he has a portrait of the 40th US president hung in a place of honor, next to his desk in the Oval Office. While Reagan acted as the leader of the united West and the Kremlin’s main opponent in negotiations with the USSR, in negotiations with Russia Trump represents exclusively the US and sees himself as a mediator rather than an opponent. America, of course, continues to support Ukraine, but less actively than under [previous US president Joe] Biden. Trump has rather strained relations with his European allies, not to mention Zelensky. For him, the confrontation in Ukraine is just one of a series of regional conflicts (India-Pakistan, Cambodia-Thailand, Armenia-Azerbaijan, etc.) that he is trying to resolve in hopes of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. Seemingly, [his view is that] “Biden dragged America into this conflict, and I’m trying to end it.” He considers Ukraine a burden to the US, both financially and politically.
Moreover, Donald Trump, like the one-time guru of American politics [national security adviser to US president Richard Nixon] Henry Kissinger, is trying to prevent a close alliance between Russia and China. He accuses Biden of allowing Moscow and Beijing to become too close. But there is an important nuance here: Unlike in the 1970s, when the US considered the USSR its main adversary and competitor, today this role is played by China. And while in previous years, America had to negotiate with China in order to contain the USSR, now, on the contrary, it needs to negotiate with Russia in order to contain the growing power of China. For this reason, Trump is trying to entice Moscow with something – lifting sanctions, economic cooperation, etc. – but here everything comes down to Ukraine. As long as this conflict continues, Washington cannot develop full-fledged cooperation with Moscow. From Trump’s point of view, this is the stone in the road that prevents him from moving forward. And, apparently, Trump will try to put pressure on Ukraine to remove this stone from the road.
Q. – The Alaska summit turned out to be very spectacular: red carpets, a flyover of fighter jets with a bomber, the leaders traveling in one limousine – But what can be said about its efficacy? Or will we find out about the real agreements later?
A. – I think that if all the planned agreements had been reached, the parties would not have cancelled the joint lunch and would not have flown home ahead of time. And they would not have replaced the press conference with a short briefing. Apparently, the discussion did not reach the point of economic cooperation; all conversations were related to Ukraine. And the main thing here is that Russia made it clear to the US that it is not interested in a truce, but in a strong and long-term peace, enshrined on paper. A ceasefire will only give Kiev the opportunity to avoid concluding such an agreement for years or decades. While the Ukraine conflict does not have any fateful significance for America, for Russia its resolution with the reliable elimination of all root causes is a fundamental, vital issue. And nothing has changed in this sense since February 2022.
Q. – A trilateral meeting of the leaders of Russia, the US and Ukraine is being discussed. Or is there no point in such negotiations until Kiev agrees to Moscow’s terms?
A. – A meeting just for the sake of meeting is impossible in this case. Moreover, in the eyes of the Kremlin, Zelensky, whose term in office has long since expired [see Vol. 76, No. 21, pp. 8‑10], has lost his legitimacy. Ideally, someone else should actually sign the peace agreement on behalf of Kiev – the speaker of the Supreme Rada, for example.
But these are details. The main question is whether there will be any agreement with Kiev at all. Trump says that everything depends on Ukraine, that it must give up something if it wants peace. What exactly to give up is a separate question. We don’t know whether this was discussed in Alaska. In their comments after the meeting, the parties were extremely reserved. But this is rather a good sign. Apparently, both Moscow and Washington are reluctant to make public all the details of the negotiations so as not to interfere with the continuation of the dialogue.
Q. – This whole year we have been witnessing Trump being “led around.” Sometimes he listens to the European leaders and Kiev and begins to threaten Russia with sanctions or issues some ultimatums. At other times, he expresses his respect for Putin, forgets about the ultimatums and puts pressure on Zelensky. So far, is Moscow winning this competition?
A. – Alaska demonstrated this. Another issue is that Zelensky now has a whole team of “wing men” from the EU, and some have already found their “secret codes” to Trump. Some play golf with him, others call him “daddy” just to get him on their side. Zelensky & Co. made another such attempt on Monday when they flew to Washington. Let’s see what happens next.
Q. – In early September, Vladimir Putin will meet with [Chinese President] Xi Jinping in Beijing. Can Russia, China and the US eventually agree on some kind of new world order?
A. – To be honest, there is little hope of that. China and the US will remain competitors, and Trump would certainly like to distance Moscow from Beijing. But he is unlikely to succeed – relations with China are too important to Russia. Plus, in 2028 Trump will leave the White House, and everything in the US could change again. The closer the election gets, the more Trump will become a lame duck. And if the Democratic candidate wins, then there will be a large-scale revision of foreign policy, and all the current president’s associates will be purged from the state apparatus. Therefore, we will not see a stable world order with clear rules at any time in the future.