In the event you’re confused concerning the goals, conduct and consequence of the summit assembly between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian chief Vladimir Putin held in Anchorage, Alaska, on August 15, 2025, you’re most likely not alone.
As summits go, the assembly broke with many conventions of diplomacy: It was last-minute, it appeared to disregard longstanding protocol and accounts of what occurred have been conflicting within the days after the early termination of the occasion.
The Dialog U.S.’s politics editor Naomi Schalit interviewed Donald Heflin, a veteran diplomat now instructing at Tufts College’s Fletcher Faculty, to assist untangle what occurred and what might occur subsequent.
It was a rapidly deliberate summit. Trump mentioned they’d accomplish issues that they didn’t appear to perform. The place do issues stand now?
It didn’t shock me or any skilled diplomat that there wasn’t a concrete consequence from the summit.
First, the 2 events, Russia and Ukraine, weren’t asking to come back to the peace desk. Neither one among them is prepared but, apparently. Second, the method was flawed. It wasn’t ready nicely sufficient prematurely, on the secretary of state and overseas minister degree. It wasn’t ready on the workers degree.
What was a little bit of a shock was the final couple days earlier than the summit, the White Home began sending out what I assumed have been sort of lifelike indicators. They mentioned, “Hopefully we’ll get a ceasefire and then a second set of talks a few weeks in the future, and that’ll be the real set of talks.”
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, right here embracing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in London on Aug. 14, 2025, is one among many European leaders voicing sturdy help for Ukraine and Zelenskyy.
Jordan Pettitt/PA Photos by way of Getty Photos
Now, that’s sort of cheap. That would have occurred. That was not a horrible plan. The issue was it didn’t occur. And we don’t know precisely why it didn’t occur.
Studying between the strains, there have been a pair issues. The primary is the Russians, once more, simply weren’t prepared to do that, and so they mentioned, “No ceasefire. We want to go straight to permanent peace talks.”
Ukraine doesn’t need that, and neither do its European allies. Why?
While you do a ceasefire, what usually occurs is you allow the fighters in possession of no matter land their army holds proper now. That’s simply a part of the deal. You don’t go right into a 60- or 90-day ceasefire and say everyone’s bought to tug again to the place they have been 4 years in the past.
However if you happen to go to a everlasting peace plan, which Putin needs, you’ve bought to resolve that persons are going to tug again, proper? In order that’s drawback primary.
Downside quantity two is it’s clear that Putin is insisting on maintaining a number of the territory that his troops seized in 2014 and 2022. That’s only a non-starter for the Ukrainians.
Is Putin doing that as a result of that basically is his backside line demand, or did he need to blow up these peace talks, and that was a great way to blow them up? It might be both or each.
Russia has made it clear that it needs to maintain components of Ukraine, primarily based on historical past and ethnic make-up.
The issue is, the world neighborhood has made it clear for many years and a long time and a long time, you don’t get what you need by invading the nation subsequent door.
Bear in mind in Gulf Struggle I, when Saddam Hussein invaded and swallowed Kuwait and made it the nineteenth province of Iraq? The U.S. and Europe went in there and kicked him out. Then there are additionally examples the place the U.S. and Europe have instructed nations, “Don’t do this. You do this, it’s going to be bad for you.”
So if Russia learns that it might probably invade Ukraine and seize territory and be allowed to maintain it, what’s to maintain them from doing it to another nation? What’s to maintain another nation from doing it?
You imply the entire world is watching.
Sure. And the opposite factor the world is watching is the U.S. gave safety ensures to Ukraine in 1994 once they gave up the nuclear weapons they held, as did Europe. The U.S. has, each diplomatically and when it comes to arms, supported Ukraine throughout this battle. If the U.S. lets them down, what sort of message does that ship about how dependable a companion the U.S. is?
The U.S. has this entire different factor occurring the opposite facet of the world the place the nation is confronting China on numerous ranges. What if the U.S. sends a sign to the Taiwanese, “Hey, you better make the best deal you can with China, because we’re not going to back your play.”
Ukrainian law enforcement officials evacuate a resident from a residential constructing in Bilozerske following an airstrike by Russian invading forces on Aug. 17, 2025.
Pierre Crom/Getty Photos
No less than six European leaders are coming to Washington together with Zelenskyy. What does that inform you?
They’re presenting a united entrance to Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to say, “Look, we can’t have this. Europe’s composed of a bunch of countries. If we get in the situation where one country invades the other and gets to keep the land they took, we can’t have it.”
President Trump had talked to all of them earlier than the summit, and so they most likely got here away with a robust impression that the U.S. was going for a ceasefire. After which, that didn’t occur.
As a substitute, Trump took Putin’s place of going straight to peace talks, no ceasefire.
I don’t suppose they favored it. I believe they’re coming in to say to him, “No, we have to go to ceasefire first. Then talks and, PS, taking territory and keeping it is terrible precedent. What’s to keep Russia from just storming into the three Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania – next? The maps of Europe that were drawn 100 years ago have held. If we’re going to let Russia erase a bunch of the borders on the map and incorporate parts, it could really be chaotic.”
The place do you see issues going?
Till and until you hear there’s a ceasefire, nothing’s actually occurred and the events are persevering with to combat and kill.
What I might search for after the Monday conferences is, does Trump keep on with his weapons post-Alaska and say, “No, we’re gonna have a big, comprehensive peace agreement, and land for peace is on the table.”
Or does he sort of swing again in the direction of the European perspective and say, “I really think the first thing we got to have is a ceasefire”?
Even critics of Trump have to acknowledge that he’s by no means been a warmonger. He doesn’t like battle. He thinks it’s too chaotic. He can’t management it. No telling what is going to occur on the different finish of battle. I believe he sincerely needs for the capturing and the killing to cease above all else.
The best way you do that may be a ceasefire. You’ve gotten two events say, “Look, we still hate each other. We still have this really important issue of who controls these territories, but we both agree it’s in our best interest to stop the fighting for 60, 90 days while we work on this.”
In the event you don’t hear that popping out of the White Home into the Monday conferences, this isn’t going anyplace.
There are millions of Ukrainian kids who’ve been taken by Russia – primarily kidnapped. Does that enter into any of those negotiations?
It ought to. It was a terror tactic.
This might be a spot the place you can also make progress. If Putin mentioned, nicely, “We still don’t want to give you any land, but, yeah, these kids here, you can have them back,” it’s the sort of factor you throw on the desk to point out that you just’re not a nasty man and you might be sort of severe about these talks.
Whether or not they’ll try this or not, I don’t know. It’s actually a tragic story.
