Trump and Putin: Trying To Square the Impossible Circle in Ukraine
Published in El Mundo
(El Salvador) on 21 August 2025
by Federico Hernández Aguilar (link to
original)
In Alaska, there do not seem to have been any signs of a flag of peace that could bring about an end to the war
Donald Trump’s supporters would like to see him stand on a podium in Oslo and receive a Nobel Peace Prize. Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin’s supporters would like to see him lead a victorious military parade through the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv to the sound of rapturous applause from the international community. While it is incredibly difficult to imagine either of these scenarios, both groups of admirers have one thing in common: they are well aware of the ultimate goals their revered political figures are pursuing.
Just as they exhibit similar personalities, Trump and Putin share equally grand ambitions. They know what their goals are, they have learned to telegraph them, and they are both perfectly aware that the only way in which both leaders can benefit from the war in Ukraine is by squaring an impossible circle. Nevertheless, their recent meeting in Alaska marked an interesting milestone in terms of political strategy, with both the American and Russian leaders continuing to find reasons to meet, extend a hand to each other, put aside insults and snide remarks, sit down for three hours of discussion and conjure up vague declarations.
The last time Putin touched down on American soil was for the 70th session of the U.N. General Assembly in New York in September 2015. At that time, Barack Obama was president and tensions had escalated between Washington and Moscow following Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014.
During that meeting a decade ago, Putin took to the U.N. stage to assert that he was a strong advocate for the organization’s search for peace and to emphasize the key role Russia could play in international checks and balances. With the exception of his suggestion for a global alliance against the then-feared Islamic State group, one could copy and paste many of the subjects he addressed in New York into his recent remarks.
In other words, Putin’s rhetoric has not changed. Neither have his methods of promoting the regime he leads, nor the exaggerated strength he attributes to Russia’s participation in global affairs. Until very recently, and since that distant day in New York in 2015, he has supported former Syrian dictator Bashar Assad with both words and action, treating him as an ally against Islamic extremism. Today Putin tries only to garner peace in the parts of Europe that interest him. Effectively, he hopes that the international community will consider the annexation of Crimea a precursor to his February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
In reality, little analysis is required to work out, with relative certainty, the source of Putin’s interminable audacity. "If they didn’t stop me in 2014, when I had the gall to seize Crimea, why would they stop me from invading the whole of Ukraine?" This is seemingly the Russian leader’s message to his American counterpart, Trump, who supposedly arrived at the military base in Anchorage to discuss an end to the conflict in the former Soviet republic.
The Alaska summit signified a golden opportunity for Trump to show off his credentials as a peacemaker. It had been hoped that putting pressure on Russia would have the same persuasive and intimidating effect Trump has always believed he induces on other world leaders. Trump even ordered seven B-2 Spirit bombers — the same type of stealth aircraft used on Iranian nuclear facilities in June — to fly overhead during the meeting in Anchorage; this was a clear display of power.
The reality was very different. Putin described Ukraine as a “brotherly” nation, adding that “everything that is happening for us is a tragedy and great pain.” Yet, while he spoke so amicably, alarms sounded in Kyiv for more potential Russian missile attacks. After resuming his rhetoric about the “legitimate concerns” used to justify the military invasion of this supposedly ‘brotherly’ nation, Putin ended with an incomprehensible statement: “Ukraine’s security must, without a doubt, be ensured. We are ready to work on this.”
Even a gifted wordsmith like Trump did not dare to delve into the true meaning of this footnote. The American president stated that he would inform NATO and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of the current state of proceedings, after which he diverted his attention to the “tremendous Russian business representatives” he would meet with. Evidently, economic issues are always on the agenda.
There were references to an “extremely productive” meeting, to resuming discussions soon (“Next time, in Moscow,” Putin quipped, perhaps joking), and to “some headway” that was purportedly made, though nobody was willing to elaborate on the details of this. In any event, no one mentioned the long-awaited agreement to end the war in Ukraine by name, despite the threatening tone Trump used with regard to Putin’s expansionism. The journalists present, and the rest of the world, left without answers.
Afterward, Washington affirmed that Zelenskyy “has to agree” to a deal that would involve ceding to Putin’s demands, a statement that sent more confusing messages about the backdrop of Trump’s role as negotiator in the crisis. Whatever this may be, there were no signs of any flag of peace in Alaska, just the prolonging of a tragic, fruitless war.
Donald Trump’s supporters would like to see him stand on a podium in Oslo and receive a Nobel Peace Prize. Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin’s supporters would like to see him lead a victorious military parade through the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv to the sound of rapturous applause from the international community. While it is incredibly difficult to imagine either of these scenarios, both groups of admirers have one thing in common: they are well aware of the ultimate goals their revered political figures are pursuing.
Just as they exhibit similar personalities, Trump and Putin share equally grand ambitions. They know what their goals are, they have learned to telegraph them, and they are both perfectly aware that the only way in which both leaders can benefit from the war in Ukraine is by squaring an impossible circle. Nevertheless, their recent meeting in Alaska marked an interesting milestone in terms of political strategy, with both the American and Russian leaders continuing to find reasons to meet, extend a hand to each other, put aside insults and snide remarks, sit down for three hours of discussion and conjure up vague declarations.
The last time Putin touched down on American soil was for the 70th session of the U.N. General Assembly in New York in September 2015. At that time, Barack Obama was president and tensions had escalated between Washington and Moscow following Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014.
During that meeting a decade ago, Putin took to the U.N. stage to assert that he was a strong advocate for the organization’s search for peace and to emphasize the key role Russia could play in international checks and balances. With the exception of his suggestion for a global alliance against the then-feared Islamic State group, one could copy and paste many of the subjects he addressed in New York into his recent remarks.
In other words, Putin’s rhetoric has not changed. Neither have his methods of promoting the regime he leads, nor the exaggerated strength he attributes to Russia’s participation in global affairs. Until very recently, and since that distant day in New York in 2015, he has supported former Syrian dictator Bashar Assad with both words and action, treating him as an ally against Islamic extremism. Today Putin tries only to garner peace in the parts of Europe that interest him. Effectively, he hopes that the international community will consider the annexation of Crimea a precursor to his February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
In reality, little analysis is required to work out, with relative certainty, the source of Putin’s interminable audacity. "If they didn’t stop me in 2014, when I had the gall to seize Crimea, why would they stop me from invading the whole of Ukraine?" This is seemingly the Russian leader’s message to his American counterpart, Trump, who supposedly arrived at the military base in Anchorage to discuss an end to the conflict in the former Soviet republic.
The Alaska summit signified a golden opportunity for Trump to show off his credentials as a peacemaker. It had been hoped that putting pressure on Russia would have the same persuasive and intimidating effect Trump has always believed he induces on other world leaders. Trump even ordered seven B-2 Spirit bombers — the same type of stealth aircraft used on Iranian nuclear facilities in June — to fly overhead during the meeting in Anchorage; this was a clear display of power.
The reality was very different. Putin described Ukraine as a “brotherly” nation, adding that “everything that is happening for us is a tragedy and great pain.” Yet, while he spoke so amicably, alarms sounded in Kyiv for more potential Russian missile attacks. After resuming his rhetoric about the “legitimate concerns” used to justify the military invasion of this supposedly ‘brotherly’ nation, Putin ended with an incomprehensible statement: “Ukraine’s security must, without a doubt, be ensured. We are ready to work on this.”
Even a gifted wordsmith like Trump did not dare to delve into the true meaning of this footnote. The American president stated that he would inform NATO and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of the current state of proceedings, after which he diverted his attention to the “tremendous Russian business representatives” he would meet with. Evidently, economic issues are always on the agenda.
There were references to an “extremely productive” meeting, to resuming discussions soon (“Next time, in Moscow,” Putin quipped, perhaps joking), and to “some headway” that was purportedly made, though nobody was willing to elaborate on the details of this. In any event, no one mentioned the long-awaited agreement to end the war in Ukraine by name, despite the threatening tone Trump used with regard to Putin’s expansionism. The journalists present, and the rest of the world, left without answers.
Afterward, Washington affirmed that Zelenskyy “has to agree” to a deal that would involve ceding to Putin’s demands, a statement that sent more confusing messages about the backdrop of Trump’s role as negotiator in the crisis. Whatever this may be, there were no signs of any flag of peace in Alaska, just the prolonging of a tragic, fruitless war.
Previous article![]( "Putin Is Negotiating Victory, Not Peace")
Next article![]( "Trump and His Personal Style")