Europe Loses Big at Alaska Summit as Political Sanctions on Putin Fail
webangah News Agency, International Desk – Roya Faridoni:
On Friday in Alaska, U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a crucial meeting to discuss peace and arms control in Ukraine. This was their first face-to-face contact since the three-and-a-half-year conflict began.
Even though the war in Ukraine was the main focus, Ukrainian President volodymyr Zelensky was not invited to attend. speaking at a joint press conference with Trump after the meeting, Putin said: “Russia and America are neighboring countries, so this meeting in Alaska was a logical step.” He described the talks as held in a “constructive atmosphere” and regarded their outcome positively.Trump called the discussions “productive and fruitful,” adding that they reached agreements on many issues.
In this context, webangah News Agency interviewed Onur Sinan Güzaltan, an international law expert specializing in foreign relations. The full interview follows:
After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began, Western countries sought to politically sanction Russia to isolate it globally. How do you evaluate Putin and trump’s meeting in Alaska under these circumstances?
The fact that despite ongoing sanctions, Putin received such formal honors on U.S. soil clearly indicates that these sanctions have failed. This meeting also suggests indirectly that America may lean toward lifting sanctions on Russia over medium or long term-even possibly short term as well. Holding this summit within U.S. territory itself constitutes a diplomatic achievement for Russia and should be assessed accordingly.
This event marks a major setback for Europe because European nations-especially Germany and France-insist on continuing or even intensifying sanctions against Moscow.Yet Washington welcomed Putin with high protocol despite previously issuing an arrest warrant against him alongside NATO allies and imposing strict sanctions targeting him personally. Thus, from a diplomatic standpoint at least, this signifies one of the clearest failures of policies aimed at isolating Russia.
Although Trump tries to present himself as a global peacemaker, there still appear meaningful challenges regarding peace between Moscow and Kyiv-they remain far from any agreement according to your view; what stands as the main obstacle?
The disagreements between Moscow and Kyiv do not solely derive from bilateral conflicts; rather they reflect one front where Western bloc forces oppose Russia-and more broadly confront Eastern interests altogether. Naturally there are specific issues between these two: territorial divisions; who controls which area; terms for prisoner exchanges if ceasefires or peace deals occur; compensation claims; among others-all highly contentious.
Certain regions currently remain under Russian administration accepted by Moscow as its own territories while fighting continues elsewhere within Ukrainian land boundaries. Though resolving these questions depends less strictly upon direct negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow-it also hinges considerably upon reconciliation or reduction of tensions between Washington-led west versus Russia-a factor plainly evident during those Alaskan talks.
Thus settling Ukraine’s situation relies more heavily upon improving Russian-American relations-and afterward ties with Europe especially Britain-rather than merely achieving bilateral accords alone now stalled due to essential geopolitical divides.
Currently positive developments exist between Washington & Moscow but serious opposition remains internally both within America & Europe’s political factions opposed towards normalization of ties with russia.
in future we can expect intensifying conflicts among these blocs given looming tensions particularly across Europe while disagreements inside America over rapprochement persist.
this could deepen rifts inside western alliances possibly triggering unforeseen consequences politically or economically worldwide.
An additional crucial point is ending ongoing war would carry heavy repercussions for many European governments because hardline groups continue advocating conflict prolongation.
Should hostilities conclude soon they risk losing substantial political power/influence domestically.
therefore regrettably provocateurs opposing peace will continue destabilizing efforts aimed at reconciliation concerning Russian-Ukrainian dispute overall.
Ukraine seems fixated mainly on ending what it sees as occupation before agreeing formally but Zelensky appears open-minded about Alaska talks as shown by his upcoming quiet meeting with Trump reportedly scheduled soon too – how would you describe Kiev’s current outlook toward any peace deal?
I beleive Zelensky does not hold sufficient leverage alone without deep reliance upon backing from America & Europe combined.
Current developments indicate Washington pursues some form of détente & peaceful engagement towards rival kremlin leadership.
Zelensky increasingly leans toward mobilizing support among European powers specifically Britain seeking continued military/political aid meanwhile = sustain the struggle militarily; a tougher stance rather than accommodating compromise yet.
The EU remains constrained geopolitically suffering weakened bargaining strength absent firm American leadership making uncertain how much resistance it can muster vis-à-vis Kremlin ambitions moving forward.
Pursuing prolonged warfare could ultimately mean weakening preeminence-even sidelining-for some players involved here reflecting real dangers regarding fractured consensus internationally about next steps going forward too.
Though appearing now ‘peaceful,’ trump’s record inspires skepticism based mainly on precedent sets elsewhere previously:
- The Iran-Israel wars trailed initial US discussions whilst Israeli military offensives continued partly supported behind scenes by American officials
- Moscow repeatedly attempted dialog overtures with Kiev only confronted by Western military escalation at last
- caucasus region displays multiple maneuvers aiming severance close Russian-Iranian cooperation networks
A similar pattern extended into Middle East theaters like Syria underscoring proxy complexity beyond obvious declarations made publicly alike today concluding such circumstances prove neither Trump’s nor US administration reliability acceptable synonymous throughout broader geopolitical context around Eurasia generally).
Ultimately just cracking positive negotiations involves careful cautious optimism expecting no swift sweeping conclusions anytime soon given enduring East-West contradictions embedded deeply what’s increasingly viewed unavoidable lasting confrontations set unless overriding force imposed favoring one side decidedly forcing settlement finally .
Even if ceasefire agreements emerge momentarily sooner rather later disputes may reappear later again involving ukrainians , Iranians , Palestinians respectively regional hotspots elsewhere middle East directly mirroring classical unresolved rivalries historically linked fundamentally controlling strangling spheres influence incrementally .”
