Letter From the Editors

This week brought Donald Trump two big wins in foreign policy: first, the initialing of a peace agreement in Washington between Armenia and Azerbaijan; then, on the opposite coast – Anchorage, Alaska – Putin’s first visit to American soil in 10 years, where he was given a red-carpet reception. Of course, the big question is what counts as a “win” in Trump’s eyes. Russian pundits have ready answers: Caucasus expert Roman Chernikov describes the Washington event as a “ceremonial gesture,” and veteran journalist Andrei Kolesnikov shares this vignette from the Alaska summit: “Donald Trump met Vladimir Putin halfway to the podium, where they posed for a photograph. The Russian president said several clearly prepared phrases to his counterpart, which apparently sounded like they were supposed to, and both laughed.”

So, the optics were right, but what about the details? Regarding the Yerevan-Baku accords, Chernikov explains that the document signed by Pashinyan and Aliyev was already approved by the respective foreign ministries five months ago. The Trump administration only added a new provision: The long-debated Zangezur corridor – a road through Armenia that would connect Azerbaijan to its exclave of Nakhichevan – would be operated and developed by an American company. “The project’s official name is as grandiose as it gets,” Chernikov reports: “the ‘Trump road for international peace and prosperity’ (TRIPP).”

The road to Anchorage was paved with equally grandiose intentions toward the Russia-Ukraine war. Thomas Graham puts it bluntly in an interview with Izvestia: “The US is seeking an actual settlement.” Of course, he hastens to add that this goal is a long way off. Not that the Alaska meeting was ill-conceived, in Graham’s view: During the summer recess of Congress, with some of Trump’s fiercest critics on vacation, “there aren’t many people in Washington, . . . so now is the best time for a meeting.”

However, American diplomat Donald Heflin says the opposite. The hasty timing did not allow for briefing papers to be drawn up or the negotiating agenda to be narrowed down. Without such preparation, summits consist of “two political leaders meeting and deciding things, often driven by political considerations, but without any real idea of whether they can really be implemented or how they could be implemented.” Kolesnikov’s on-the-ground impressions bear out Heflin’s predictions – in fact, there wasn’t even a Q&A afterward for the journalists who had trekked to the “press center” of tents pitched on the grounds of the Elmendorf-Richardson air base.

One of the few takeaways from Trump’s brief speech after the talks was that he suddenly dropped the demand that all Western leaders had insisted upon till now – that Russia stop shooting before it starts negotiating. Instead, writes Andrei Okun, “the US president said it made more sense to discuss a final peace deal than a ceasefire – which is exactly what Vladimir Putin wanted.” In fact, Okun argues, the main reason Putin came to Alaska was to “flip” Trump to embrace his narrative. Now that Putin is back in Russia, he can “sit back and watch how his newly recruited ‘asset’ does his dirty work for him.”

Whatever pressure Kiev might get from Washington to make nice with Moscow, Svetlana Gamova reports improved ties with neighbors Romania and Moldova. For example, Moldovan President Maia Sandu has proposed that her country and Ukraine join the EU “in a single package.” In addition, “Sandu has convinced the Romanian authorities that they should support Ukraine.” An important factor here are the “EU solidarity lanes” that transport fuel and weapons into Ukraine via Romania and Moldova, and grain, sunflower oil and other agricultural products in the opposite direction. In return for this support, Ukraine is revising language legislation to help its Romanian-speaking minority.

When it comes to international peace, let’s hope the Asian proverb holds true: “There is more than one road to the top of the mountain.”