Is the Trump-Putin summit just a retread of the Trump-Kim summit?
An internationally controversial statesman who has escalated security conflicts with regional neighbors faced an ultimatum from U.S. President Donald Trump, and was then invited by Trump to a bilateral summit aimed at resolving the international crisis. Some anticipated the summit as a historic opportunity for peace, while others feared the prospect of a U.S. president being deceived into making a “bad deal.” Ultimately, the meeting concluded with widely publicized photo ops but without concrete agreements for a diplomatic resolution.
This description fits the bilateral summit held last week in Alaska between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. But it also applies to a different summit Trump held seven years ago with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. In 2018, Trump, making a drastic departure from his previously confrontational rhetoric toward the North Korean regime, announced a summit with Kim to be held in Singapore. For some, frustrated by years of diplomatic gridlock over North Korea’s nuclear program, the summit was seen as a risky yet worthwhile strategy to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough.
The Singapore summit resulted in a joint statement affirming a commitment to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The statement, however, lacked concrete procedures and benchmarks for implementation and verification. Some analysts sought to mitigate disappointment, observing that it was premature to expect substantive achievements from a first summit while expressing hope that a “good deal” might emerge from future meetings.
The Alaska summit bears similarities to the Singapore meeting. Despite concerns from Europe and Ukraine, the Trump-Putin meeting did not produce an outcome comparable to the historical Munich or Yalta Conferences, which forced weaker countries to accept geopolitical sacrifices imposed by the great powers. Instead, as Trump admitted at the press conference, no deal was reached between the United States and Russia. Putin remained committed to his objectives, demanding a resolution of the “original roots” of conflict. No substantive agreement was achieved on security assurances for Ukraine, territorial settlement, easing of international sanctions on Russia or even reducing the fighting between Ukrainian and Russian forces. Despite Trump’s reassurance that there was still a “good chance” of achieving a peace settlement, the Russia-Ukraine war remains, for now, unchanged.
What now? A more optimistic outlook is that the current “no deal” could eventually lead to a “better deal.” In preparing for future talks with Putin, Trump could strengthen consultation with European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Russia, facing increased pressures from the sustained war, may moderate its demands — for example, accepting the current military border as a ceasefire line. As Trump suggested, Zelenskyy could also participate in a future trilateral summit, advocating directly for Ukraine’s interests in front of his Russian adversary.
Trump’s past summit diplomacy with North Korea, however, poses warnings for talks with Russia. A “no deal” may prolong tensions or eventually increase pressure to accept even a “worse deal.” After the inconclusive Singapore summit, Trump held two more meetings with Kim, in Hanoi and at the truce village of Panmunjom. These subsequent meetings, however, also failed to achieve a diplomatic settlement, despite Trump’s claim of a friendly relationship with the North Korean leader. The continued diplomatic impasse didn't weaken North Korea’s resolve, but instead provided opportunities, such as the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine War, for Kim’s regime to continue developing its nuclear capabilities. Six years later, North Korea is more committed than ever to securing its legitimacy as a nuclear-armed state, further increasing the denuclearization challenges.
For the Russia-Ukraine war, it is also uncertain when or whether more favorable circumstances for a diplomatic settlement might emerge. Trump may continue to hold summits with Putin and even invite Zelenskyy to participate. Trump and Zelenskyy, however, may struggle to persuade Putin to moderate his demands. The prolongation of the war would increase costs and burdens not only on Russia, but also on Ukraine, Europe and the United States. Will diplomatic and strategic patience eventually wear Putin into conceding? Or would it wear down Ukraine and the Trump administration, leading to greater concessions?
Summit diplomacy is not a bad approach to diplomatic settlement. When negotiating with authoritarian regimes, direct engagement with their leaders may have advantages in building interpersonal credibility and accommodating their desire for international legitimacy. Furthermore, concerns about the consequences of a diplomatic impasse should not motivate hasty acceptance of an unfavorable deal. The lack of a deal at the initial Alaska summit should not dissuade the Trump administration, along with European and Ukrainian leaders, from continuing to pursue a realistic, sustainable diplomatic settlement with Russia.
The prolongation of diplomatic talks, however, does create fatigue and risk a loss of credibility. The longer negotiations stall, the more pressure Trump will face. For the Trump administration, which seeks peace with Russia without being perceived as accepting “defeat,” the diplomatic challenge lies in sufficiently reassuring and pressuring their counterparts in negotiations. It’s a challenge that requires persistence, balance and boldness.
Some experts assess that U.S. administrations, including Trump’s, were not successful in either reassuring nor pressuring the North Korean regime. With the Russia-Ukraine War, Trump’s summit diplomacy has another opportunity. After three years of war, Europe is anxious over the possibility of either a long-lasting war or an eventual defeat resulting from U.S. abandonment. In contrast to the past Trump-Kim summits, we must hope that the second round of the Trump-Putin summit will prove more successful than the first in advancing regional security and stability. If Trump does well, perhaps it will revive hopes for diplomacy with North Korea, too. And if Trump is unsuccessful, the geopolitical consequences will be felt not just in Europe but across the world, including the U.S.
Lee Jong-eun is an assistant professor of political science at North Greenville University.