Alaska Summit Between Trump and Putin Sparks Historic and Political Buzz — But Ukraine Is Left Out
When Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin chose Alaska for their recent summit, it wasn’t just any random pick. This U.S. state, which was purchased from Russia 158 years ago, holds symbolic meaning that many Russian commentators have eagerly pointed out. To them, it’s a nod to the deep historic ties between the two nations and, perhaps, a hopeful signal for warmer relations down the road.
Alaska: The Bridge Across the Bering Strait
Alaska’s unique history is rooted in its Russian origins — back in 1867, Russia sold the vast territory to the United States for $7.2 million. Since then, the state has evolved into an American stronghold, but the cultural footprint of Russia still lingers. From the Russian Orthodox churches scattered across the landscape to town names like Nikolaevsk and Voznesensk, the state serves as a living reminder of a shared past.
Alexander Bobrov, writing for the Russian state-controlled network RT, captured this sentiment well. He called the summit “more than just a meeting between two leaders” and suggested it could be a “return to the logic of direct dialogue without intermediaries.” For Bobrov, Alaska isn’t just a spot on the map — it’s a potential gateway to bridging relations “across the Bering Strait,” the narrow waterway that physically separates Russia and the U.S.
He highlighted the historical arc: “Alaska’s story began as Russian, continued as American — and now has the chance to become a shared chapter, if both sides choose to see it as an opportunity rather than a threat.” The idea of the state becoming a symbol of renewed cooperation clearly appeals to many in Moscow.
Russia’s Take on Alaska and the Summit Venue
Russian officials have been openly praising the choice of Alaska as the summit venue. Yuri Ushakov, President Putin’s foreign affairs aide, posted on Telegram last week, emphasizing the geographic closeness of the two nations: “Russia and the United States are close neighbors, bordering each other.” Ushakov framed the decision as “quite logical,” noting that the Russian delegation simply had to fly across the Bering Strait for the important meeting.
Similarly, Russian Senator Vladimir Dzhabarov told the state news channel Russia24 that Alaska was a “very wise” choice — mainly because it’s “very far from Ukraine,” some 5,000 miles away, and distant from Europe, which Russia views as largely hostile at the moment.
Ukraine and Europe Left Out: A Source of Tension
However, the historic symbolism of Alaska wasn’t enough to overshadow a glaring political reality: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European representatives were notably excluded from the talks. This omission has raised alarm bells in Kyiv and throughout Europe, where leaders worry that decisions about Ukraine’s fate are being made without their input.
Zelenskyy voiced his frustration bluntly on Saturday, saying that any decisions made without Ukraine were essentially “decisions against peace.” His words reflect a widespread fear that the summit could sideline Ukraine at a critical moment in its ongoing war.
When asked if Zelenskyy was invited, Trump’s response was dismissive: “He wasn’t a part of it.” Trump downplayed the Ukrainian leader’s role, stating that although Zelenskyy had attended many meetings during the war, “nothing happened.” He added, “I would say he could go, but he’s gone to a lot of meetings. You know, he’s been there for three and a half years — nothing happened.”
Meanwhile, European leaders are taking a different approach. They are preparing to hold a videoconference this Wednesday to coordinate peace negotiations, ahead of their own talks with Trump and Vice President JD Vance. A joint EU statement on Sunday acknowledged Trump’s efforts to end the war but stressed firmly: “A path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine.”
The Reality on the Ground: Violence Continues Amid Diplomatic Moves
Promises of dialogue between Trump and Putin have so far failed to slow the brutal conflict in Ukraine. On the contrary, the Kremlin’s forces continue to advance, pushing deeper into Ukrainian territory at a heavy cost. Cities remain under relentless bombardment, and the human toll rises daily.
In the early hours of Tuesday, Russian drone strikes killed two civilians and injured 13 more across multiple regions of Ukraine, underscoring the ongoing violence despite diplomatic efforts.
The summit, set in a place symbolic of cooperation but distant from the battlefield, stands in sharp contrast to the harsh reality faced by Ukrainians. While Russia and the U.S. discuss terms and attempt to chart a path forward, the war rages on with devastating consequences.
Why Alaska? More Than Just Geography
From Moscow’s perspective, the choice of Alaska sends a powerful message: Russia and the United States share a geographic closeness that many outside the region might overlook. Unlike Europe, which currently has strained relations with Russia, Alaska represents a neighborly connection with potential for dialogue.
Russian Ambassador to the U.S. (former) also highlighted the practicality of the location, saying it was logical for their delegation to simply cross the Bering Strait rather than travel farther west or east for such a critical summit. For them, the symbolism of geography melds with real-world logistics.
Will Alaska Become a New Chapter?
The idea that Alaska could be more than just a historical footnote in the U.S.-Russia relationship is certainly intriguing. If both sides view this meeting as a genuine opportunity for cooperation rather than a geopolitical standoff, the state could indeed become a shared chapter in their stories.
However, with Ukraine’s exclusion and Europe’s concerns, the summit faces significant skepticism. Critics argue that the absence of key stakeholders in discussions about the war in Ukraine threatens any chance of lasting peace.
Looking Ahead: A Complicated Path
As Trump and Putin convened in Alaska, many observers noted the complexities surrounding the meeting. The historic ties and geography might set the stage for dialogue, but the political realities cannot be ignored.
Will Alaska’s symbolism translate into tangible progress? Or will it be remembered as a summit that failed to include the voices that matter most — those living through the conflict?
Only time will tell, but one thing is clear: the war in Ukraine continues to shape global diplomacy, and any path to peace must reckon with the voices on the ground.
Login