Dipak Kurmi
The sight of Vladimir Putin on American soil this week represents one of the most consequential diplomatic moments in recent memory, marking a potential inflection point in the complex web of relationships between the United States, Russia, Europe, and China. After a decade of deep tensions that have fundamentally reshaped the global order, the Alaska peace talks on Ukraine, coupled with broader discussions on US-Russia ties between President Donald Trump and Putin, could herald far-reaching transformations in Eurasian security architecture. For India, now bearing the burden of a punitive 25 percent additional tariff on exports to the United States due to its Russian oil imports, the summit's outcome carries direct implications for its strategic autonomy and economic interests.
The historical significance of Putin's presence cannot be overstated. His last visit to American territory was in 2015 for a United Nations summit, where he met President Obama on the margins of the proceedings. Subsequent encounters with American presidents have been relegated to neutral third countries—Helsinki in 2018 and Geneva in 2021—while his last formal White House summit dates back to 2005. This chronology reflects the steady deterioration of US-Russia relations since the late 2000s, a decline precipitated by NATO's eastward expansion, Moscow's annexation of Crimea in 2014, and the full-scale invasion of eastern Ukraine in February 2022.
The decision to host Putin represents a bold political gamble by Trump, particularly given two decades of entrenched political hostility toward Russia within American establishment circles. The suspicions harbored by elements of the American "deep state" regarding Trump's alleged ties to Moscow, combined with Democratic attempts to impeach him during his first term based partly on Russia-related allegations, make this diplomatic overture all the more striking. Yet this audacious move is deeply rooted in Trump's distinctive worldview and his determination to break from conventional Washington orthodoxy.
Three fundamental elements define Trump's approach to this summit. First is his consistent signaling of a desire to break from Washington's entrenched antagonism toward Russia, despite the inevitable political costs. Constrained during his first presidency by institutional resistance and ongoing investigations, he now appears determined to explore a fundamentally different relationship with Moscow. This represents not merely tactical flexibility but a strategic reorientation that challenges decades of bipartisan consensus on Russia policy.
Second is Trump's self-proclaimed identity as the "peace president," a narrative that has become central to his political brand. Throughout 2024, he repeatedly claimed that Russia's invasion of Ukraine would never have occurred under his presidency and that he possessed the unique ability to end the conflict "on day one." His January 2025 inaugural address crystallized this philosophy when he declared that success would be measured "not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end—and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into." This sentiment aligns perfectly with the MAGA movement's rejection of "endless wars" and its emphasis on prioritizing domestic reconstruction over foreign military interventions.
The third defining element is Trump's instinctive tendency to link peace initiatives with profit opportunities. His various proposals—transforming Gaza into a resort destination, securing mineral rights in Ukraine, exploring commercial partnerships with Russia, or facilitating Pakistani oil sales to India—all reflect a "peace-for-profit" logic that views economic interdependence as the foundation for lasting stability. Should the Alaska summit produce a viable agreement, observers should expect significant commercial components to be integral to any final arrangement.
Behind the scenes, Trump's Ukraine envoy Steve Witkoff and Putin aide Kirill Dmitriev have been developing comprehensive "peace-for-business" proposals that center on de-escalation in exchange for substantial commercial openings between the United States and Russia. These discussions encompass structured oil and liquefied natural gas flows, enhanced protections for critical energy infrastructure, and automatic penalties should hostilities resume. Arctic cooperation represents another promising avenue, given both nations' interests in the region's vast energy reserves and strategic shipping routes. A parallel track explores controlled trade in critical minerals and rare earth elements, resources increasingly vital for technological advancement and national security.
However, significant obstacles impede the pursuit of this peace-for-profit approach. Political resistance remains formidable both in Congress and across European capitals, where many view any commercial engagement with Russia as premature and potentially counterproductive. Kyiv's adamant opposition to arrangements that appear to reward Moscow's aggression adds another layer of complexity, as does the inherent difficulty of negotiating the structural problems involved in ending such a multifaceted conflict.
The summit's format itself presents legitimacy challenges that could undermine any eventual agreement's durability. By excluding Ukraine as a direct participant and effectively sidelining European allies, the talks risk being perceived as a great power bargain struck over the heads of those most directly affected. While efforts are being made to engage European leaders and include President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in some capacity, the essential dilemma persists: whether to pursue a rapid ceasefire that freezes current battle lines or to embark on a slower, more inclusive process that secures broader international legitimacy. Putin's clear preference for direct bilateral negotiations with Trump further complicates efforts to create a more representative framework.
Five interconnected issues lie at the heart of these peace negotiations, each presenting formidable challenges. The ceasefire question involves establishing an immediate, verifiable halt to hostilities with clearly demarcated lines of control—a deceptively simple concept that becomes extraordinarily complex when applied to active battle zones with fluid boundaries. Territory and sovereignty represent perhaps the most intractable issue, as Russia seeks recognition or at least de facto acceptance of its control over Crimea and the occupied portions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, while Ukraine categorically rejects any land-for-peace arrangement that would legitimize territorial conquest through military force.
The security architecture question strikes at the core of European stability, with Moscow demanding binding limitations on Ukraine's potential NATO membership, Western military bases on Ukrainian soil, and arms supplies to Kyiv. Ukraine, conversely, insists on its sovereign right to choose its security alignments and partners. Sanctions relief represents another crucial battleground, as Russia seeks rapid easing of economic restrictions while Western nations insist that meaningful concessions must precede any significant sanctions reduction. Finally, enforcement mechanisms—including credible monitoring systems, withdrawal schedules, buffer zones, and dispute resolution arrangements—are essential to prevent any agreement from collapsing under the weight of mutual mistrust and competing interpretations.
The complexity deepens when considering the divergent positions of key stakeholders. Trump seeks a quick, dramatic "win" that can validate his peace president narrative and demonstrate his unique diplomatic capabilities. However, elements within his own administration and many in Washington's foreign policy establishment counsel caution, fearing that premature concessions could embolden Putin and undermine long-term American interests. Moscow, for its part, is pursuing a durable settlement that not only ends the immediate conflict but also secures Russia's role in European security architecture. The Kremlin wants to block further NATO expansion and seeks influence over Ukraine's internal governance arrangements.
Kyiv's position remains uncompromising on fundamental issues: full sovereignty over all internationally recognized Ukrainian territory and complete freedom to choose security partners and alliances. European reactions are divided along tactical lines, with some leaders advocating for "ceasefire first" approaches while others insist on Ukraine's central participation in negotiations and reject unilateral concessions that could set dangerous precedents for international law.
European leaders harbor deep anxieties about the possibility of Trump and Putin striking a "Yalta-style" bargain that divides spheres of influence without meaningful consultation with affected parties. However, their leverage in influencing Trump's approach remains limited, particularly given his administration's skepticism toward traditional alliance structures and multilateral decision-making processes. Beijing watches these developments with considerable wariness, understanding that a US-Russia rapprochement could free Washington to concentrate its strategic pressure on China in the Asia-Pacific region.
For India, the implications of potential US-Russia reconciliation present both opportunities and challenges. Historically, Russia-West conflicts have strengthened China's position and enhanced Pakistan's strategic value to various powers, thereby constraining India's regional policy options. New Delhi had hoped that Trump's pursuit of peace with Russia would align with Indian interests by reducing global tensions and potentially creating space for more balanced great power relationships.
However, India has unexpectedly become collateral damage in Trump's strategy to pressure Moscow into a negotiated settlement. The 25 percent additional tariff imposed on Indian exports specifically targets New Delhi's continued imports of Russian oil, attempting to leverage India's economic interests to reduce Moscow's revenue streams. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's recent call to President Zelenskyy to reaffirm India's support for the peace process demonstrates New Delhi's careful navigation of these treacherous diplomatic waters.
The potential outcomes of the Alaska summit present India with uncomfortable scenarios regardless of success or failure. Should the talks fail, India would likely face continued economic pressure and diplomatic complications from its Russia relationship. Success, however, would not guarantee relief from American tariffs, as Trump has embraced trade measures as both diplomatic tools and domestic political weapons that may persist regardless of broader US-Russia dynamics.
This situation carries profound historical echoes that should concern Indian policymakers. During the détente period of the 1970s, the Soviet Union's primary focus shifted toward managing the global order in partnership with the United States, often at the expense of relationships with non-aligned partners. Similarly, after the Cold War's end, Russia largely ignored its traditional allies in favor of building partnerships with America and Europe, requiring more than a decade to restore close ties with India.
The lesson for New Delhi is unambiguous: no great power relationship can be taken for granted, regardless of historical bonds or current strategic convergence. India must strive to develop independent, diversified relationships with all major powers while avoiding entanglement in their conflicts. The Ukraine crisis serves as a stark reminder that India should resist being drawn into great power confrontations, despite the transient opportunities such conflicts may appear to present. The Alaska summit, whatever its outcome, will test India's strategic autonomy and diplomatic agility in an increasingly multipolar but conflict-prone world order.
(The writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)
