"The Alaska Summit is a defeat for the United States and a victory for Putin"- in the Washington Post

قبل ساعة واحدة

The summit that brought together the American presidents, Donald Trump and Russian Vladimir Putin in Alaska, remains a shadow of articles in British, American and Russian newspapers.

In the Washington Post, the writer, Max Pot, considered in his article that the summit was a "defeat" for the United States.

He said that the Friday meeting between Trump and Putin "was not the worst, but it was not good either, except from the viewpoint of the Kremlin", and the writer compares the summit with previous meetings held 8 decades ago between American presidents and their Russian counterparts.

He pointed to the Alaska summit was not like Helsinki in 2018 when "Trump insulted himself and his country by accepting Putin's assurances that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 elections, ignoring the conclusions of the American intelligence services that confirmed the opposite."

And he believed that "the best that can be said about the Alaska's top is that it could have been worse."

The most finished reading

The author relied on this, that Trump did not announce his support for Putin's demand that Ukraine hand over more lands to Russia in exchange for the ceasefire, and the two leaders did not agree to reduce the US sanctions imposed on Russia.

But the writer said, "If the Alaska summit was not catastrophic, it was definitely a defeat," and he saw that Putin "was clearly victorious from his latest confrontation with an American president."

He drew attention to the fact that "Putin's victory was clear from the beginning when the American forces brushed the red carpet of a dictator accused by the International Criminal Court of war crimes in 2023, and he could not risk traveling to most countries for fear of arrest."

While Putin praised Trump and that he would never invade Ukraine if the latter was president, but the writer asked: "Why did Putin doubled his attacks with drones and missiles since Trump's inauguration?"

He believed that Putin "succeeded in deceiving" Trump after he postponed the imposition of sanctions on Russia that he had threatened before the summit, and that the two presidents did not agree to the ceasefire.

Trump said that he retracted his demand for a ceasefire, and his agreement with Putin to move directly to negotiate a "peace agreement, which would end the war", and the writer explained that "a mitigation of pressure on the Russian president to stop his fierce attacks against Ukraine."

But he saw that Trump's hint, "the owner of the volatile approach in this war," to provide American security guarantees to Ukraine as part of a peaceful settlement, will be an important victory for Kiev if it happens.

Looking at Trump's volatile approach to the war in Ukraine, it is too early to feel despair. Trump alluded to European leaders after the summit to his willingness to provide American security guarantees to Ukraine as part of a peaceful settlement. If this is true, it will be a great victory for you.

"Establishing the position of Russia as a superpower"

In the Telegraph newspaper, Richard Kemp, a retired British army officer, wrote an article in which he called Europe to fear Putin, which "established Russia's position as a superpower."

The writer said that the Trump and Putin meeting "was equal" because the latter's progress in Ukraine "cannot be stopped despite more than three years of Western efforts."

And "although the Ukrainian forces confronted the Russian -kidnapped attack at the beginning of the war, and fighting them with courage and carrying out attacks inside Russia, Putin still believes that he can bear any strikes he directed to Kiev and that he is able to win more lands, while his forces continue to advance in the Donbas region rich in mineral wealth, and represent the main military axis of Russia," according to the writer.

He pointed out that Putin "prefers not to continue fighting for Donbas if he is able to obtain it by other means," Trump told that "the war can end if Ukraine withdraws from 30 percent of Donetsk, which his forces have not occupied yet."

But Zelinski "will be hesitant" in approval of Putin's demand, and stated that voluntary waiver of any Ukrainian lands will require amending the constitution, according to the article.

The writer said that Zelinski "is the balance between that and his assessment of the ability of the Ukrainian forces to keep their lands if the war continues, and what may be the result of that."

"This evaluation will have to include the continuation of the West, which is awaiting the possibility of achieving peace, in support of the Ukrainian defense efforts, and to what extent Ukraine can be effective alone," he said.

The writer indicated that Putin "did not offer anything in return." He believed that the ceasefire before the "agreement" that Putin wants does not care, while "the ceasefire that represents a priority for the West) was not taken seriously" in Alaska.

He believed that "despite the military defects that have been evident since the war began, the power of Russia is underestimating it," noting that "the advanced western technologies and its military curricula are not sufficient to defeat it."

"Russia has learned modern war lessons, and adapted its forces and strategies to deal with drones and other field innovations in a way that the West has not accompanied," according to the writer.

He pointed out that Russia "continues to maintain amazing levels of weapons production, and completes its production with supplies from Iran, North Korea and China." On the other hand, "the West could not match it, or it was not willing to keep up with it."

He said that the war will continue unless Zellinski agreed to Putin's demands, at a time when "the Europeans were satisfied with the location of the spectator on the fate of Ukraine- and their fate they are."

"Obstacles" in Russia in front of ending the war

In Russia, Elena Davlekanova wrote an article in the Moscow Times by asking him by asking, "Why is it difficult for Putin to end the war in Ukraine?"

The writer said that the summit that did not approach Ukraine from a permanent peace produced "a coordinated return of Russia from its diplomatic isolation for years."

The writer said that "Putin's strategic goal from the beginning was not the inclusion of Ukrainian lands as much as the re -constellation of Russia's position as a global power and dominant power in Europe."

But she said, "Russia is difficult to act as a superpower with a modest economy, which can be compared to Italy's economy. Therefore, the last resort remains the review of power and nuclear arsenal."

Thus, the US President's welcome to Putin in Alaska, and the wearing of Secretary of State Sergey Lavrov, a shirt bearing the character of the Soviet Union, has served the main goal of the Kremlin well. Today, Russia's portrayal as a global force in a world formed by the competition of the great powers to serious political discourse, according to the author.

She talked about "another important factor that nourishes the war, which is the hesitation of the West in imposing strict sanctions on Russia and its entire application, after the invasion and annexation of the Crimea, which gave the Kremlin time to redirect its trade." She pointed out that Russian export revenues exceed the levels of 2015, despite international sanctions.

As a result, "the Russian economy adapts, and it started slowing only after three years of unimportant growth supported by government spending, and it will be able to withstand a period before it collapses," according to the writer who saw that "secondary sanctions on countries that deal commercially with Russia, and reduce oil prices, the last resort to ensure peace."

She pointed out that "another obstacle to ending the war is the financial interests of those who gathered a wealth from the military industrial complex and restructuring the economy in wartime, which created a layer of winners."