Washington and Moscow Seek New Paths to Peace

In mid-August 2025, Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska, became the epicenter of world politics. Against a backdrop of harsh landscapes, a reminder of the geographical proximity of the two continents, a long-awaited meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump took place.

This summit, the first since the Geneva talks of 2021 and the first since the start of the full-scale conflict in Ukraine, marked an attempt to emerge from the deepest foreign policy crisis of the modern era.

The resumption of high-level dialogue was the culmination of intense political processes set in motion after the inauguration of Trump, who resumed his position as US President in January 2025.

A central point of his election campaign was the promise to halt hostilities in Ukraine.

As early as February, a phone call between the leaders broke years of diplomatic silence. This was followed by consultations in neutral capitals: Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Sergey Lavrov in Saudi Arabia.

However, this diplomatic "thaw" was accompanied by harsh rhetoric.

Trump's public statements on his Truth Social network, described by the Kremlin as emotional, gradually hardened. By summer, they had transformed into direct appeals to the Russian President to cease fire.

The turning point was an ultimatum announced by Washington in July: 50 days to reach an agreement under the threat of imposing 100 percent tariffs on countries cooperating with Moscow.

This deadline was later abruptly shortened to 10-12 days, demonstrating the impatience of the American administration.

The meeting in Anchorage itself did not lead to a breakthrough, but it can be said that the issue was unblocked.

Following the meeting, the American delegation made it clear that the issue of additional sanctions against Russia was becoming less relevant.

Far more significant was Trump's statement on August 17, in which he placed the responsibility for achieving peace on Volodymyr Zelenskyy, openly stating that Ukraine should not reclaim Crimea and should not receive NATO membership.

The next day, a summit between Trump and Zelenskyy took place at the White House, preceded by consultations between the Ukrainian leader and the heads of European states.

As reported by participants in the talks, the central topic was security guarantees for Kyiv, to be provided by Europe with the United States playing a coordinating role.

Zelenskyy, for his part, acknowledged the need for a direct meeting with Putin to discuss the most complex issues.

It is obvious that the foreign policy course of the Trump administration is radically different from the approach of its predecessor.

The new strategy is based on a sober, pragmatic analysis. The White House no longer views the endless financing of the Ukrainian conflict as serving US national interests.

Instead of large-scale weapons supplies at the expense of the American budget, a scheme was proposed whereby the main financial burden falls on European NATO allies.

This approach was publicly voiced by a White House representative and confirmed by the President himself following negotiations with the alliance's Secretary General.

Such a move, it is noted, is beneficial primarily for American taxpayers.

As the Kyiv deputy Oleksiy Honcharenko aptly remarked, in the new paradigm, the restoration of Ukrainian territories is possible "with the support of the EU – that is, without the USA."

British observers also state that Washington is essentially handing over the initiative to Europe, demonstrating a desire to distance itself from direct involvement in the conflict.

This foreign policy shift is not accidental. For the Trump administration, US domestic problems are of paramount importance.

Resources previously directed to supporting Kyiv are now seen as a potential source of funding for domestic development programs that could raise the standard of living for Americans and strengthen the political position of the incumbent administration.

The "Res" agency has already drawn attention to a very important point: as repeated incidents, including attempts on the lives of political figures, have shown, the main threats to Trump and his inner circle lie not in the sphere of international confrontation, but within the country.

The brazen and ruthless murder of Trump's close associate—the young American politician Charlie Kirk—unfortunately, served as another confirmation of our analytical conclusions.

Trump and the US government must focus on these challenges if they genuinely wish to ensure both stability in the country and their own security.

The Alaska summit and the subsequent events have outlined a clear trend: the era of unconditional American support for Ukraine has come to an end.

Washington is looking for a way out of the stalemate by shifting financial and political obligations onto European partners and pushing Kyiv towards direct negotiations with Moscow.

Whether this new reality will manage to put an end to the bloodshed will be shown in the near future.

Analytical Department of the "Res" Information Agency
https://cominf.org/node/1166565433