Putin or Trump? Western Experts Analyze the Winner of the Pivotal Meeting

According to Western analysts, the winner of yesterday’s meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska was the Russian leader. They emphasized that the U.S. president could only achieve his goals by intensifying pressure on Moscow. Consequently, they argued, the United States must impose tougher sanctions against Russia and, alongside its allies, continue to arm Ukraine.

According to Rokna, Trump and Putin, following a three-hour meeting yesterday, left the summit venue in Anchorage, Alaska, without reaching any specific agreement.

Trump, after his first meeting with his Russian counterpart since the outbreak of the Ukraine war and the start of his second presidential term, admitted that he had not achieved his goal. He had expected the summit to create conditions for the beginning of a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, but Putin did not even agree to a pause in hostilities.

Media reports indicated that apart from the announcement of a possible future meeting—perhaps in Moscow—neither president made any firm commitments.

Experts at the Atlantic Council think tank offered differing perspectives on the future of Ukraine and Trump’s pursuit of peace.

Putin Offered No Real Concessions

John E. Herbst, Senior Director of the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council and former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, believes that Putin achieved his tactical objective for the second time in two weeks: avoiding “severe consequences” from the United States. Trump had set a firm deadline for Putin to accept a ceasefire by August 8. However, by exploiting his meeting with Steve Witkoff, Putin ignored the deadline and shifted focus to the encounter.

Details of the meeting remain scarce, and some elements may emerge after Trump briefs Zelensky and NATO. At that point, it will be possible to judge whether Putin ultimately took any steps forward.

Herbst stated: until then, Trump should send a private message to Putin that if the bombing of Ukrainian cities does not stop, Russia will face new sanctions. If it is confirmed that Putin offered no concessions in Anchorage, the U.S. must rapidly and comprehensively impose extensive sanctions against Russia and deliver a major U.S. military aid package to Ukraine—funded by Europe.

Leslie Scholl, a member of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and head of emerging communications, considered the negotiations positive, describing the prospect of a next round of talks in Moscow as an extraordinary step and a source of optimism for Trump.

She argued that although Trump made it clear that severe consequences await if Putin abandons the negotiations, the fundamental problem complicating the situation is that the Biden administration, for two and a half years, was slow to deliver the weapons Ukraine needed for victory. This delay created a favorable environment for Russia to entrench itself in Ukraine, giving Putin leverage and battlefield advantage.

The analysis praised Trump’s approach, claiming that he is striving for peace and an end to the bloodshed, even at the cost of risking his political capital.

Putin’s Hardline Stance and Failure to Enforce Anti-Russia Sanctions

Daniel Fried, a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council and former U.S. Ambassador to Poland, described Friday’s summit as “without agreement, without ceasefire, and without any signs of progress.” He added that the situation could have been worse, as the two presidents might have cut a deal on Ukraine and pressured Zelensky to accept it.

He considered Trump’s calculation in holding the meeting to be misguided, as Trump failed to enforce his threats of increasing pressure on Moscow.

The analyst expressed hope that Trump would make a decisive choice to intensify pressure on Putin to end the war.

Oleksandr Shumsher, former Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States, also assessed the Alaska meeting as favorable to Russia. He noted that it appeared to be a victory for Putin, as it was accompanied by pomp and warm hospitality, an exit from diplomatic isolation, and yet another postponement of new, severe direct and secondary sanctions.

He argued that Putin remained inflexible on the most critical issue of the negotiations—the war in Ukraine—and refused to scale back his military objectives.

The former Ukrainian diplomat also suggested that it is still necessary to determine what, if any, agreements were reached or discussed between the two presidents. In any case, Trump was reportedly pleased with Putin’s treatment of him and regards him as a valuable partner for seizing business opportunities and rebuilding bilateral relations.

Philip Dickinson, a former British diplomat in the Commonwealth Office of the Foreign Ministry, claimed that Putin managed to share the stage with the U.S. president while avoiding immediate sanctions and further economic pressure through empty statements about respecting Ukraine’s security.

Regarding Washington’s next steps, he argued: it is difficult to consider this meeting a victory for Trump, but Putin only responds to strength and pressure. Now is the time for Europeans to press Trump to recognize that Putin is the sole obstacle to peace. Ultimately, Trump must apply his “peace through strength” approach to this conflict by intensifying collective military, diplomatic, and economic pressure on Russia.

Melinda Haring, Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, stated that Trump has the ability to pressure Russia. However, the most telling statement came from Putin, who remarked that the roots of the war still remain. This, she emphasized, means Putin’s position has not changed.

Brian Whitmore, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Eurasia Center and Assistant Professor at the University of Texas-Arlington, also stressed that the Alaska summit did not alter the fundamentals of Russia’s war against Ukraine. Russia’s objectives remain maximalist and destructive, as reflected in Putin’s repeated demands to address the “root causes” of the war, which directly concern Ukraine’s existence.

Whitmore asserted that Putin will be satisfied only with Ukraine’s total capitulation. He argued that the outcome of the war will be determined on the battlefield, and the most effective way to ensure an early Ukrainian victory is for the United States and its allies to continue arming Ukraine.

He further emphasized the necessity of imposing secondary sanctions against Moscow. According to him, at least in the short term, the only clear winner was Putin, who witnessed the end of his international isolation. While he did not achieve the lifting of sanctions, he nonetheless received a ceremonious welcome from Trump on American soil without making any concessions.