How will the Alaska meeting affect the Winter War of 2022 as it grows ever closer to 2026?
The Russian penetration of Ukrainian lines northeast of Pokrovsk last week was bigger and more dangerous than some analysts initially concluded.
We know this because we know what it took for Ukrainian forces to block further Russian advances—and then begin rolling back the incursion this week. It took all or some of around 10 brigades and regiments, including several fighting under the banner of the Ukrainian national guard’s new 1st Azov Corps.
The extent of the Ukrainian counter-attack is unclear.
I've long wanted Ukraine to hit those spearheads like this. Is this a one-off? A new trend? Telegraphing something bigger there--or somewhere else? Also, I was worried about Russia's penetrations in the area but several stories suggested it was fine, so I stopped worrying as much. But it apparently took a lot of Ukrainian forces to end the threat.
Amazingly, despite this development the most exciting action took place far from the front. Do we know what was agreed to in Alaska between Trump and Putin?
It’s possible that the upcoming meeting could be promising but not decisive. It’s possible Putin will continue his negotiating strategy of delaying results to try and change the military situation in Ukraine. And it’s possible that the summit will be canceled or postponed. But in my view, the threat to India means that Putin needs a settlement. This will be a matter of geopolitics, but it will also be determined by internal Russian politics, or simply by Putin’s private consideration.
And let me just say that I appreciate the message from the U.S. to Russia by holding the meeting on former Russian territory that America bought from Russia that has proven to be a great buffer against Russian aggression. And which makes America an Arctic state so it isn't just smaller nations opposing Russian ambitions to dominate the region. Or maybe it was just a taunt. Which is fine, too. Which would reinforce the India tariffs point, I suppose.
Anyway.
Did the meeting outcome reflect this Russian weakness?
No it did not. There was no ceasefire deal. Putin's long discussion of anything but a ceasefire and Trump's game face during that telegraphed the lack of immediate results, and when he spoke he "emphasized that the meeting had been 'productive,' but that the US and Russian delegations reached 'no deal.'"
For those speculating about a new Munich, the outcome should be a relief. That's a defeat for Putin, right?
And for those who say Putin won by simply appearing with an American president, why? What does that really do for Putin? Show that America gave him a chance to end the war and he refused to take it?
Nor is another meeting certain given Putin's apparent lack of movement away from his maximalist objectives to control or at least dominate Ukraine. Which should be puzzling given that Russia endures heavy casualties, economic problems, and looming secondary sanctions to punish those who essentially fund Putin's war on Ukraine, symbolized by American tariff actions against friendly India which buys cheap Russian oil.
If Putin needs a settlement because of all this, Trump--who is willing to put business before pleasure when it comes to coping with Russia's current bout of aggression (seemingly more of a dead cat bounce than a true revival)--is Putin's best hope. Trump doesn't want Russia to win the war. But he is willing to provide an economic safety net to make it possible to end the war. While I think the threat of escalation to nuclear war is grossly over-stated, shit happens. All things being equal I'd like to end that small threat.
But if Putin needs a settlement--and I've long thought he does--he apparently doesn't need it right now. And part of the problem may be that Putin isn't balancing what is good or bad for Russia, but what is good or bad for his personal survival. Right now, Putin probably doesn't think he could survive what will look like a defeat by agreeing to stop trying to conquer or dominate Ukraine.
How might Putin portray a deal to end his invasion as a way to save Russia from China? America led by a president willing to put business (ending the Russian active threat and resisting the China "pacing" threat) before pleasure (punishing Russia for its crime of brutally invading Ukraine) could absolutely help with that.
There was no deal to end the Winter War of 2022 coming out of the Alaska meeting. At least not one that is apparent. Perhaps Putin's long-winded recounting of better days in America-Russia relations set the stage for a plan that saves Ukraine, Russia, and Putin. Hopefully, Trump's claim the meeting was "productive" hints at something bigger than just a ceasefire.
Has Trump decided to expand the problem to overcome Putin's ceasefire reluctance?
After his high-stakes summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin and ahead of his meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump announced his intention to bring a more final end to the war.
"It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere ceasefire agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Saturday.
While some portray this as a victory for Putin, I've thought a ceasefire that never got to a peace treaty would simply replicate Russia's post-Crimea invasion policy.
It is also interesting in light of my views on what Putin could do to save himself by posing as the savior of Russia who ended (turn down the lights and squint) the alleged NATO threat and gained its help to Make Russia Great in the Far East Again (probably a better acronym in Russian is available).
And Europeans were invited to remotely join Trump's meeting with Zelensky at the White House on Sunday.
But I know I'm letting longstanding hopes for flipping Russia lead my speculation down that path. Heck, I tried to see that in the months leading up to Russia's invasion. We'll see.
UPDATE (Monday): I reject the notion that meeting Putin in Alaska legitimized Russia and/or its aggression. Russia's size, military potential, and nukes legitimize Russia as a great power.
Americans met the Soviets all the time during the Cold war in recognition of that status without lifting the USSR economic isolation that largely held firm. Nor did America ever recognize the Soviet's conquest of the Baltic States or accept its occupation of Eastern European states yoked to Moscow with the facade of the Warsaw Pact "alliance."
As long as we don't try to give Russia what it hasn't earned on the battlefield and undermine whatever opposition there is to Putin by letting Putin claim he snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, talking is fine.
But we must view talks as a means to defeating Russia and not a means to getting any deal regardless of the details.
UPDATE (Monday): Surely the parade of NATO member, NATO, EU, and Ukraine's leaders heading into the White House shows that Putin has not divided the West over Putin's invasion. Breathe, people.
UPDATE (Monday): Just going to say that for years I've been advising people not to panic over Trump and Ukraine:
U.S. President Donald Trump told President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Monday that the United States would help guarantee Ukraine's security in any deal to end Russia's war there, though the extent of any promised assistance was not immediately clear.
And consider that this means supporting NATO states protecting Ukraine. So my similar advice about Trump and NATO applies, too.
NOTE: ISW updates continue here. Also, I put war-related links and commentary in the Weekend Data Dump.
NOTE: You may also read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved.
NOTE: I made the image with Bing.
