The writer is an economist, anchor, and geopolitical analyst
and the President of All Pakistan Private Schools’ Federation
president@Pakistanprivateschools.com
U.S. and European military planners have begun exploring post-conflict security guarantees for Ukraine, following President Donald Trump’s pledge to help protect the country under any deal to end Russia’s war. Ukraine and its European allies have been buoyed by Trump’s promise during a summit on Monday of security guarantees for Kyiv, but many questions remain unanswered. In the wake of a week-long diplomatic endeavour of paramount importance, aimed at arresting the conflict in Ukraine, Donald Trump, President of the United States, has expressed his resolve to orchestrate a summit between Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President of Ukraine. Following discrete audiences with both leaders, President Trump hath eschewed the deployment of American troops to Ukraine, whilst pledging security assurances to Kyiv and intimating that Washington might furnish aerial support to bolster a prospective accord. Since the commencement of President Trump’s second term in office, succour to Ukraine hath diminished precipitously, with Washington suspending all manner of support, including armaments, subsequent to a tense conference with President Zelenskyy at the White House in March. President Trump hath averred that the United States hath bestowed in excess of $300 billion in wartime aid upon Ukraine, an assertion contested by Ukraine and its partisans, notwithstanding the US being the foremost donor nation. According to the esteemed Kiel Institute, Ukraine hath received no less than 309 billion euros ($360 billion) in aid from 41 nations since the outbreak of hostilities, comprising: Military Aid: 149.26 billion euros ($174 billion); Financial Aid: 139.34 billion euros ($163 billion); Humanitarian Aid: 21.04 billion euros ($24 billion). The United States, as the largest contributor, hath committed 114.64 billion euros ($134 billion) to Ukraine between January 24, 2022, and June 30, 2025, apportioned as follows: Military Aid: 64.6 billion euros ($75 billion); Financial Aid: 46.6 billion euros ($54 billion); Humanitarian Aid: 3.4 billion euros ($4 billion). The recent meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska, aimed at brokering a peace deal to end the war in Ukraine, has garnered significant attention. Despite the high-profile nature of the summit, no agreement was reached, highlighting the complexity and depth of the conflict. U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin convened in Alaska for a high-stakes summit primarily aimed at negotiating an end to the ongoing war in Ukraine. The meeting, marked by symbolic gestures such as a lengthy handshake, a shared ride in “The Beast”, and brief joint remarks, ultimately concluded without any concrete agreement on a ceasefire or broader resolution. Trump appeared subdued in the aftermath, acknowledging the complexity of the conflict and backing away from his earlier campaign rhetoric of resolving it in “24 hours,” instead floating vague timelines like “2-3 weeks.” Putin, by contrast, was described by observers like former U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton as the clear “winner,” having avoided new sanctions or concessions while gaining a platform that lent legitimacy to Russia’s position. No follow-up meeting was immediately scheduled, though Trump hinted at potential tariffs on countries buying Russian oil and a possible trilateral discussion involving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. This outcome underscores a pivotal moment in U.S.-Russia relations, highlighting the limitations of unilateral American pressure in a multipolar world. The meeting’s failure to yield an agreement carries profound implications for global geopolitics, particularly in the context of the Ukraine conflict, which has dragged on since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. For Ukraine, the lack of progress prolongs a devastating war that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, displaced millions, and ravaged infrastructure, with no immediate relief in sight. European allies, who have borne much of the economic and refugee burden, expressed frustration, insisting that “Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine”—a pointed critique of the summit’s bilateral format excluding Zelenskyy. On the U.S. side, the impasse weakens Trump’s domestic narrative as a master dealmaker, potentially eroding support among voters weary of foreign entanglements while emboldening critics who argue his approach prioritises spectacle over substance. Globally, it signals an erosion of Western leverage: Russia’s ability to sustain its military campaign despite unprecedented sanctions demonstrates resilience, potentially encouraging other revisionist powers like China or Iran to test boundaries in their spheres of influence. Energy markets could face further volatility if Trump’s tariff threats materialize, disrupting global supply chains and inflating prices for consumers worldwide. In a broader sense, the summit reinforces a shift toward a multipolar order, where U.S. dominance is no longer assured, forcing Washington to reckon with partners who operate on equal footing rather than as subordinates. The challenges exposed by this encounter are multifaceted, rooted in the inefficacy of traditional U.S. tools like sanctions and the historical baggage of American foreign policy toward Russia. Russia remains the most sanctioned country in history, with over 16,000 measures imposed since 2014, yet it has not only weathered the storm but emerged as Europe’s largest economy by purchasing power parity (PPP) in 2024, surpassing Germany with a PPP GDP estimated at around $5.3 trillion. This growth, driven by war-related stimulus, rerouted trade to allies like China and India, and a booming defense sector, defies predictions of economic collapse and illustrates the limits of isolation as a strategy. Critically, if Trump had approached the summit “waving around potential sanctions and other ultimatums,” as some hardliners advocated, it likely would have backfired, entrenching Putin’s defiance and alienating potential mediators. Deeper challenges stem from three decades of U.S. policy missteps: NATO’s eastward expansion, perceived by Moscow as encirclement; the dismissal of Russian security concerns post-Cold War; and interventions like the 2014 Ukraine crisis that fueled narratives of Western meddling. These have bred mutual distrust, making compromise elusive. U.S. elites, often insulated in echo chambers of exceptionalism, must confront this changed reality—a world where sanctioned nations thrive through alternative alliances, and coercive diplomacy yields diminishing returns. Failure to adapt risks escalating tensions, including proxy conflicts or nuclear brinkmanship. Amid these hurdles, the summit presents opportunities for recalibration, provided leaders embrace pragmatic diplomacy over confrontation.
The meeting’s outcome may have far-reaching consequences for global politics, influencing NATO’s stance, European security and the balance of power between major nations. The future of US-Russia relations hangs in the balance, with this summit serving as a critical juncture in determining the trajectory of international diplomacy and conflict resolution. U.S. must internalize that the world has indeed changed—sanctions alone no longer dictate terms, and diplomacy rooted in realism offers the best shot at peace.
The US elites need to understand that the world has changed, the emergence of new global power centers and the resilience of nations like Russia underscore the need for adaptive strategies in international relations. The meeting’s outcome could have a significant impact on regional stability, particularly in Eastern Europe. The summit reflects shifting global power dynamics, with Russia asserting its influence despite being the most sanctioned country in the world. The meeting provides insight into the future of US-Russia relations, which could have far-reaching implications for global politics. As the world navigates these shifts, understanding the implications of such meetings and their potential impact on global stability is crucial. The meeting signifies a shift in global power dynamics, with Russia asserting its influence despite being the most sanctioned country in the world. Russia’s ability to navigate these sanctions and become the largest economy in Europe last year underscores its resilience. The lack of agreement raises concerns about Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Potential territory swaps between Ukraine and Russia have sparked debate, with implications for regional stability. The significant differences between Russia and Ukraine’s positions on key issues, such as territorial control and neutrality, pose substantial challenges to reaching an agreement. The role of international actors, including the US and European Union, in influencing the negotiations and potential outcomes is crucial. However, their ability to exert pressure while respecting sovereignty is a delicate balance. The meeting demonstrates the potential for diplomatic engagement between world leaders, even in the face of deep-seated conflicts. Continued dialogue may yield future opportunities for cooperation. The changing global landscape may necessitate innovative approaches to conflict resolution, considering multiple stakeholders’ interests and exploring new avenues for peace. Trump’s willingness to engage directly with Putin—his first such meeting as president in this term—opens a channel absent under previous administrations, potentially paving the way for incremental deals like the rumored “air ceasefire” to halt aerial bombardments. For Ukraine, a diplomatic track could unlock frozen assets for reconstruction, while Russia might gain sanctions relief in exchange for troop withdrawals. Critically, this requires U.S. elites to shed ideological rigidity, recognising that peace often demands uncomfortable trade-offs. As one observer noted, the meeting’s theatrical warmth—smiles and elbow pats—hints at personal rapport that could evolve into substantive progress if not squandered on posturing. If approached as a diplomat ready to compromise, acknowledging past U.S. errors such as ignoring Russia’s red lines on NATO, Trump could broker a framework where Ukraine retains sovereignty while addressing Moscow’s concerns over neutrality and minority rights. This realist pivot aligns with a multipolar worldview, where the U.S. negotiates as a peer, fostering stability through mutual concessions rather than dominance. Opportunities extend to broader issues: energy cooperation to stabilize global prices, arms control talks to reduce nuclear risks, and joint efforts on Arctic security, given the summit’s Alaskan venue. The Trump-Putin Alaska summit exemplifies the perils and promise of great-power dialogue in a transformed global landscape. It’s no-deal outcome perpetuates uncertainty but also illuminates a path forward: one where understanding Russia’s economic defiance and historical grievances enables genuine compromise. Without this shift, opportunities will slip away, leaving challenges to compound into crises. The Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska signifies a complex and delicate diplomatic endeavor, with implications extending far beyond the bilateral relationship between the US and Russia. The summit’s primary focus on ending the Ukraine war highlights the urgent need for a peaceful resolution, yet the lack of agreement underscores the substantial challenges ahead. Key issues, such as territorial control and sovereignty, remain contentious, with potential land swaps and concessions sparking debate. The meeting’s outcome may have far-reaching consequences for global politics, influencing NATO’s stance, European security and the balance of power between major nations. As the world watches, the future of US-Russia relations hangs in the balance, with this summit serving as a critical juncture in determining the trajectory of international diplomacy and conflict resolution. U.S. must internalize that the world has indeed changed—sanctions alone no longer dictate terms, and diplomacy rooted in realism offers the best shot at peace.
