Translation. Region: Russian Federal
Source: People's Republic of China in Russian – People's Republic of China in Russian –
An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
Source: People's Republic of China – State Council News
ANCHORAGE/MOSCOW, Aug. 17 (Xinhua) — U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met at the Elmendorf-Richardson Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday to discuss the Ukrainian issue and U.S.-Russia relations. The two leaders smiled and shook hands, calling the meeting "constructive" and "fruitful," but did not reach any agreements.
Experts believe that both sides achieved their diplomatic goals to a certain extent during the talks. However, a one-time meeting cannot resolve deep-seated contradictions, and the “chess game” will only worsen in the future.
THE MEETING IS A BREAKTHROUGH IN ITSELF
The Anchorage summit was the first personal meeting between the leaders of Russia and the United States since June 2021, the first meeting between D. Trump and V. Putin since June 2019, and the first visit of the Russian president to the United States since September 2015. The international community described these talks as “of particular significance.”
At a joint press conference after the meeting, both V. Putin and D. Trump announced progress in the negotiations, but did not disclose specific details.
V. Putin said that Russia is “sincerely interested” in ending the conflict with Ukraine — “and the sooner, the better.” He expressed hope that the understanding reached with D. Trump “will open the way to peace.” D. Trump noted that the meeting brought some progress, but on what is “possibly the most important” issue, an agreement has not yet been reached, although “very good opportunities” remain.
Experts believe that there is a hidden subtext in the leaders’ statements at the press conference. In his speech, V. Putin mentioned the history of friendship between Russia and the United States, expressed hope that the meeting “will mark the beginning of the restoration of businesslike, pragmatic relations between Russia and the United States,” and stated that “it is important and necessary to turn the page and return to cooperation.” D. Trump especially emphasized that the parties have many issues to discuss “in the commercial sphere.”
Both leaders confirmed the absence of agreements, but expressed readiness for further contacts. Experts believe that this indicates a multitude of unresolved issues, as well as that the parties touched upon key issues during the meeting. Personal communication between the leaders demonstrates their will for a political settlement of the Ukrainian crisis and has a certain positive significance.
Chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs Leonid Slutsky said that the meeting was not a “complete breakthrough,” but could be “a turning point in matters of restoring cooperation between the two leading nuclear powers and in matters of ending the conflict” in Ukraine. Russian political scientist Sergei Mikheyev noted that the very fact of this meeting is already a breakthrough.
ACHIEVING CERTAIN DIPLOMATIC GOALS
Experts believe that despite the lack of agreements, Russia and the United States achieved their diplomatic goals to a certain extent during the meeting.
Analysts note that the meeting benefited Russia in at least two ways. First, the invitation of V. Putin to the United States and the reception he received allowed Russia to overcome its diplomatic isolation from Western countries. As NBC News notes, the meeting met Russia's expectations – "it was a meeting on equal terms," Russia got rid of "Western accusations and isolation."
Secondly, Russia gained time and space. A number of Russian experts said that Russia hoped to use the meeting to ease the sanctions pressure from the United States. On August 13, D. Trump said that if V. Putin did not accept the offer of a ceasefire in Ukraine, he would face “very serious consequences.” However, after the meeting, D. Trump told reporters in an interview that the meeting went “very well,” and the United States would not consider the issue of possible “serious consequences” for Russia for “at least two or three weeks.”
As for the American side, experts believe that D. Trump got “media attention” from the meeting, creating an image of a mediator trying to restore US-Russian relations. Darrell West, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that D. Trump wanted to show that he was trying to get the US out of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which is in line with the expectations of his domestic supporters.
Former National Security Advisor John Bolton assessed the meeting as follows: “V. Putin won, D. Trump did not lose.” However, some American observers believe that the meeting did not demonstrate real progress on the issue of a ceasefire in Ukraine, and D. Trump is increasingly moving away from his promise to “end the conflict in 24 hours.”
DEEP CONTRADICTIONS REMAIN
The meeting did not lead to agreements or a ceasefire in Ukraine. Experts believe that one meeting of the presidents will not resolve deep contradictions, and the “chess game” around the Ukrainian issue will escalate.
For Russia, the immediate cause of the conflict was NATO's constant expansion to the east, which was squeezing its strategic space. Ukraine, on the eve of the meeting, stressed the need to receive security guarantees.
Experts believe that the Trump administration, guided by the “America First” policy, in the Ukrainian issue is primarily striving to create diplomatic achievements and reduce American costs, which cannot really resolve the concerns of Russia and Ukraine.
Ukrainian political scientist Igor Chalenko pointed out the need to work on organizing negotiations with the participation of Ukraine, the United States and Russia. “Although the subject of such a meeting is narrowed to the issue of introducing a ceasefire regime,” the expert said.
Associate Professor of the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) Dmitry Novikov noted that the Russian position is to reach a legally binding agreement to truly end the conflict and eliminate the military threat, while the United States is only interested in a speedy ceasefire.
At the press conference, both V. Putin and D. Trump “mentioned” Europe. V. Putin expressed hope that “Kyiv and the European capitals will perceive all this in a constructive manner and will not create any obstacles.” D. Trump stated that Europe and Ukraine “must agree” with the opinion of the American representatives present at the meeting. D. Novikov believes that even if Russia and the United States reached certain agreements at the meeting, Europe and Ukraine will not accept them easily, and the game of the parties will become more intense.
WHERE ARE US-RUSSIAN RELATIONS HEADING
At the bilateral level, experts believe that US-Russian relations have received a certain chance for détente, but structural contradictions remain acute.
L. Slutsky said that the meeting was a “transition to a new stage in bilateral relations.” Timofey Bordachev, program director of the Valdai International Discussion Club, believes that interaction between Russia and the United States is returning to normal.
Li Yonghui, head of the Department of Multilateral and Regional Cooperation at the Institute of Russia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said that after the meeting, Russia and the United States could make some progress in restoring diplomatic relations and developing economic cooperation, especially in areas where their interests coincide. However, structural contradictions in arms control and geopolitics remain in Russian-American relations, and the Ukrainian issue also holds them back.
Russian expert D. Novikov pointed out that only a solution to the Ukrainian issue can allow Russian-American relations to get back on track and really improve. Newsweek magazine notes that economic cooperation between the US and Russia will contradict American sanctions against Russia.
Many experts believe the meeting will also increase uncertainty in US-European relations. The New York Times writes that the meeting could create cracks within NATO. –0–
Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
.
