The historic meeting between the Presidents of Russia and the United States in Alaska concluded without groundbreaking joint statements. Yet, the aftermath revealed that the summit was far from “quiet.” Instead, it set off a chain reaction reshaping the global political and economic landscape, forcing Ukraine and European allies to quickly adjust to a new reality.
Just one day later, on August 18, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky rushed to Washington. According to Politico, a high-level European delegation also traveled to the U.S. capital, including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte.
Germany’s Bild reported that U.S. President Donald Trump planned individual meetings with each European leader, underscoring Washington’s mounting diplomatic pressure on its allies. However, contrary to fears of “excluding Europe from the peace process,” both Moscow and Washington called on European leaders to play a more active role in shaping a path toward peace.
Artyom Sokolov, a researcher at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), noted that current drafts of U.S.–Russia agreements are “unacceptable” to Europe because they take Moscow’s interests into account. For over three years, Europe’s strategy has been aimed at delivering a “strategic defeat” to Russia. Yet, Sokolov argued, the EU will find it difficult to continue supporting Ukraine without strong backing from Washington.
Meanwhile, Pavel Koshkin of the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies emphasized that the most significant agreements remain undisclosed to avoid reputational damage, as they involve mutual concessions.
Dmitry Suslov, Deputy Director at the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies, highlighted a “significant convergence” between Moscow and Washington on a framework to resolve the Ukraine conflict. He argued that President Trump’s push for a comprehensive peace deal is the summit’s most critical result.
Political analyst Vladimir Vasilyev added that President Zelensky’s refusal to cede the Donbass region was a key reason for his invitation to Washington. Europe, meanwhile, has little choice but to publicly voice its support for Kiev, despite limited policy options.
According to Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Russia’s financial markets reacted cautiously. The ruble remained stable while the stock market showed little movement. Alexander Potavin of Finam predicted that the ruble could gradually weaken to 80–84 per U.S. dollar in the coming months unless international trade stabilizes.
Conversely, if negotiations progress positively and deliver tangible outcomes, the ruble could see a short-term boost, though likely as an “emotional response.”
Pavel Seleznyov, Dean of International Economic Relations at the Financial University under the Russian Government, argued that the Alaska summit signaled President Trump’s readiness to abandon the long-standing “anti-Russia” policy, which has lost its political utility. He emphasized that using Ukraine as a tool against Moscow has failed. Instead, Trump appears focused on driving U.S. reindustrialization through new tariff policies targeting major trade partners.
According to Seleznyov, closer cooperation with Russia could inject “trillions of dollars into U.S. market capitalization,” offering far greater benefits than maintaining previous confrontational policies.
While the Alaska summit did not produce immediate landmark agreements, it marked a strategic turning point in U.S.–Russia relations. It reflects a fundamental shift in Washington’s approach to the Ukraine conflict, prioritizing national economic interests over traditional political commitments. This new direction compels both Europe and Ukraine to reassess their strategies and confront a rapidly evolving geopolitical reality.
Tiếng Việt
English
