All eyes are on Alaska, a location steeped in Russian history as a mistake of a sale to America back in the mid 1800s. There, in the chilly confines of Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet face to face for the first time since Trump’s return to the White House. The stated agenda is narrow: Explore the possibility of ending the war in Ukraine. The unspoken stakes are far broader — geopolitical leverage, personal power, and the shape of the post-Cold War order itself.
It is an extraordinary location for such a consequential encounter. Alaska sits just 55 miles from Russia across the Bering Strait. It is also symbolic: A place where Russian history, American sovereignty, and Arctic strategic competition intersect. The question is whether this meeting will serve as a genuine peace negotiation — or a masterclass in manipulation.
Is Vladimir Putin “smarter” than Donald Trump? In the conventional sense of political strategy, the answer from most analysts would be an unambiguous yes. Putin has spent nearly a quarter of a century consolidating power in the Kremlin, mastering the arts of timing, narrative control, and incremental territorial ambition. His method is deliberate and rooted in long-term strategic objectives. Trump, by contrast, is a master of political theatre — a salesman who thrives on spectacle, shock value, and dominating the news cycle.
Where Putin plays chess in the long run and poker in the short run, Trump plays only high-stakes poker. The difference matters. Chess requires mapping multiple moves ahead, anticipating countermoves, and masking one’s true intent until the moment of the decisive strike. Poker, by contrast, rewards bluff, risk, and the occasional reckless bet. The concern among many foreign policy experts is that in a bilateral negotiation with Putin — particularly one without deep institutional guardrails — Trump’s instinctive desire for a “deal” could be weaponised against him.
The more unsettling question is whether Putin even needs to outmanoeuvre Trump — because he may already “own” him in the ways that matter. This is not to imply literal ownership, but rather an asymmetric relationship in which one side consistently extracts more value than it gives. Over the years, Trump has repeatedly praised Putin’s intelligence, strength, and leadership — even when such comments were politically costly at home. US intelligence officials have privately expressed concern that Trump’s views on Russia are shaped less by cold policy analysis than by personal admiration.
This dynamic is not new. During Trump’s first term, the infamous 2018 Helsinki summit saw the US President publicly side with Putin over his own intelligence agencies on election interference by Russia. That precedent looms over Alaska. If the same deference is on display, any agreement reached could skew heavily toward Moscow’s interests — particularly if it involves Ukrainian territorial concessions.
Speculation has swirled that Trump could fly to Moscow immediately after Alaska. For now, that appears unlikely. White House sources describe the Alaska session as a “listening exercise” rather than a deal-signing ceremony. The more probable next step is a multi-party summit involving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and select European leaders — if, and only if, the Alaska talks create momentum. Still, in the volatile world of Trump-Putin diplomacy, no scenario can be entirely ruled out.
For Ukraine, the risks are existential. The war has already devastated its infrastructure, displaced millions, and strained its economy. An unfavourable deal could lock in Russian control over eastern and southern regions, limit Kyiv’s NATO ambitions, and leave the country permanently vulnerable to future aggression. While Zelenskyy has signalled willingness to consider creative paths to peace, he insists they must preserve Ukraine’s sovereignty and security — conditions that may be difficult to square with Putin’s maximalist demands.
The view from Europe is one of acute anxiety. Many NATO states fear that a Trump-Putin “grand bargain” could sideline European voices and undercut collective security commitments. If Ukraine is pressured into territorial concessions without security guarantees, the message to smaller states is chilling: Great powers can redraw borders with impunity. This could embolden not only Russia but also other authoritarian actors with expansionist ambitions.
For India, the Alaska talks carry layered implications. New Delhi has managed a delicate balancing act since the start of the Ukraine war — maintaining robust ties with Moscow for energy and defence cooperation while deepening strategic and economic engagement with the United States. A sudden US-Russia thaw brokered by Trump could ease pressure on India from Western allies to scale back its Russian imports. Yet if such a deal comes at Ukraine’s expense — ceding occupied territories — it could set a dangerous precedent for international norms, especially in Asia, where border disputes remain active. India, a vocal supporter of territorial sovereignty in its own region, would face the moral and diplomatic test of responding to a peace built on altered borders.
The markets are watching the Alaska meeting with a mix of hope and trepidation. A credible peace framework could ease global inflationary pressures by stabilising energy and grain exports from the Black Sea region — especially if Russian sanctions are partially lifted. European equities, particularly in manufacturing and transport, could see an immediate boost. The Indian stock market, sensitive to global oil prices, might rally on expectations of lower crude costs and reduced geopolitical risk.
However, the flip side is equally potent. If the talks fail — or worse, if they signal US willingness to make sweeping concessions to Moscow — investors could price in greater long-term instability. That could weaken the euro, dampen European investment flows, and introduce a “volatility premium” into global equity markets. Defence sector stocks in the US and Europe might spike on expectations of prolonged militarisation, while emerging market currencies could wobble under capital outflows.
Ultimately, the Alaska summit is about more than Ukraine, or even US-Russia ties. It is a test of whether high-level diplomacy in 2025 can still be rooted in principles rather than just optics. For Trump, the temptation will be to emerge with a headline-grabbing declaration of success, regardless of its actual content. For Putin, the goal is simpler: Shift the strategic landscape in Russia’s favor while appearing reasonable to the global audience.
As the snow and military security cordons close in around Anchorage, the world waits to see if this is a step toward peace or a carefully choreographed concession. In geopolitics, as in chess, it is often the quietest moves — the ones made off-camera — that decide the game.
The writer is a policy advisor and global strategist specialising in humanitarian diplomacy, trade, and governance. Views are personal
