Actual improvement of the bilateral relationship between the United States an Russia should be helpful in ending the war in Ukraine. Virtually any effort that facilitates sustainable peace is worthy of China’s support. So the meeting in Alaska does not need to be interpreted as unproductive.
U.S. President Trump and Russian President Putin sat down with senior advisers from each country at a highly anticipated summit in Alaska, August 15, 2025.
U.S. President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, met for more than two hours at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in a suburb of Anchorage, Alaska, on Aug. 15. It was their first meeting since 2019 — and face-to-face at that. Judging from reports, they reached no consensus on a cease-fire between Russia and Ukraine. Yet, an important step was taken toward rapprochement in U.S.-Russian relations.
Trump had previously claimed he would know minuted into the meeting whether or not Putin was interested in peace, and if discussion went badly he would leave. His positive attitude following the meeting indicates at least that the two sides didn’t fall out, and the threat of “extended sanctions” against Russian oil exports was decently shelved. More important, Trump toned down his own position in the Russia-Ukraine cease-fire question from dominator to mediator, and promising to call Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, EU leaders and others he deems appropriate to brief them on the meeting.
So there doesn’t seem to be much for Ukraine or the EU to complain about. A matter of life and death morphed into a meeting of old friends where there was no loser. We’ll have to wait and see whether the change in the U.S. president’s attitude proves sustainable. For now, it may make more sense to analyze its underlying logic.
International morals
The Russia-Ukraine conflict is the largest regional war in the 21st century, but it was avoidable. After meeting with Trump, Putin openly endorsed Trump’s habitual claim that the war would not have taken place had he been the U.S. president at the time. From the perspective of international morality this war, with its enormous casualties, should stop immediately, yet the conditions for a cease-fire given by both sides make people doubt their readiness.
Putin expressed a clear willingness to pursue a cease-fire. While it remains unknown whether or not his conditions have actually loosened, he has sent the ball into the court of Ukraine and its European NATO allies who staunchly support continued fighting. More important, normalizing Russia-U.S. relations would undoubtedly help cool the conflict. Without U.S. dominance European military aid alone may not be able to sustain Ukraine in a prolonged war.
If Trump has realized that he cannot order the two countries to immediately stop fighting, and is resorting to normalizing U.S.-Russia ties to prevent the continuation, escalation or spillover of the war, there may indeed be a ray of hope regarding the prospect of a cease-fire.
Logic of geopolitics
As an extreme form of international politics, armed conflicts can only be resolved politically, short of the annihilation of one side. All stakeholders in a war will conduct cost-benefit calculations, but betting the farm “at any cost” has proven unsustainable. More than three years into just such an exhausting war, further weakening or even crushing Russia is not in the U.S. national interest because that could lead to endless turmoil in the European order, which in turn would come with risks that would constitute a major drag on U.S. global strategy. Trump or not, the time seems to have come to ease the U.S.-Russia relationship.
Trump seems unusual only because he is more focused on the direct economic benefits of cooperation in energy and minerals with Russia. He will be satisfied if the U.S. becomes a toll bridge in the future economic relationship between Russia and Europe, takes advantage of any cease-fire to enhance U.S. influence and brings the U.S. more profits.
Decision-makers’ benefits
In Western political regimes, decision-makers’ calculations of self-interest should never be ignored. For Trump, effectively mediating a cease-fire between Russia and Ukraine would create the image of a “peacemaker.” To him, such an image is not only an honor but also an important condition of his political safety. Meanwhile, since his remarks on social media have a significant impact on how any Russia-Ukraine cease-fire might unfold, they will have immeasurable market value.
These two benefits will determine whether or not Trump will stick to a mediation role, but he won’t use U.S. hegemony to press the warring parties for an immediate cease-fire in the short term. Doing that would not only be costly and risky but could also be used by Trump’s political rivals to say he surrendered to Russia. He could even be condemned as a figure of infamy who forced Ukraine to sacrifice its national sovereignty. A person as cunning as Trump certainly won’t accept such a losing deal.
The three logical chains have made normalization of U.S.-Russia relations the keystone of the Trump-Putin meeting, and Trump’s role switch has been the foremost achievement. At the news conference following the meeting, Putin underscored the need to reverse the situation under which Russia-U.S. ties have reached their lowest point since the Cold War. Trump expressed hope for constructive and fruitful meetings in the future. So it will be no surprise if the two meet again very soon.
Considering the tensions between the U.S. and Russia over the past five years, such remarks should not just be seen as simple diplomatic rhetoric. Actual improvement of the bilateral relationship should be conducive to ending the war. As the Chinese Doctrine of the Mean theorizes, “Harmony is the common path for all under heaven.” So any effort that facilitates sustainable peace is worth our support.
