This Friday, Donald Trump is set to meet with Vladimir Putin in a summit that will bring two of the three most powerful global players to the same table for the first time in years.
You will be bombarded with coverage.
From Washington to Brussels, from Kyiv to Moscow, each political center will curate its narrative to validate its own position. Headlines will tell you it’s a breakthrough, a disaster, or a stalemate — sometimes all on the same day. The noise will be deafening, but the real story will be hiding in the quiet parts: the omissions, the vague language, and the shifts that follow.
Alaska is not a neutral backdrop. It’s a stage chosen with intent — the edge of U.S. territory, a handshake away from Russia across the Bering Strait, and a gateway to the Arctic’s untapped resources and strategic shipping lanes. This is not just about Ukraine or sanctions, in fact it is not even primarily about that. It’s about setting the foundations — geographic, economic, and military — that will shape the next stage of U.S.–Russia relations.
This is the first in a multi-part Thotharis series on the Alaska summit — examining the context, decoding the coverage, and tracking the real outcomes as they unfold. In the days ahead, we’ll explore the Arctic chessboard beneath the optics, and conclude with an in-depth post-summit analysis.
In this first part, and before I launch into a more in depth coverage of the reasons, incentives, drivers and motivations behind the summit in the next pieces, I want to give you a primer, a sort of lens through which you can look beyond the coverage and draw your conclusions.
To read this summit for what it is, you need to know the context, understand why it’s happening now, and recognize the traps in how it will be covered.
First, The Context
This meeting comes just nine days after Steve Witkoff — Trump’s special envoy — spent three hours with Putin in Moscow. The public readouts from that session were deliberately opaque. Russian and American accounts didn’t match — one floated the idea of a Russian pullback from parts of Donetsk for concessions, another suggested Putin pressed for a Ukrainian “peaceful withdrawal” from occupied zones.
Despite reports from multiple sources citing Witkoff as misunderstanding the messages from the Kremlin, the contradictory messaging coming out of the meeting may not necessarily be a flaw. By blurring the public story, both sides preserve negotiating space, avoided premature commitments, and managed their domestic audiences. The fact that a leader-level summit was scheduled almost immediately afterward signals that Witkoff’s mission cleared enough ground for Trump and Putin to take the conversation to the top level.
The timing also follows a month of U.S. policy whiplash. In early July, the White House paused certain weapons deliveries to Ukraine, only to resume them days later, now adding Patriot systems and threatening secondary sanctions on buyers of Russian oil (which were largely ignored). For Trump, this sequence turns mixed signals into leverage: a blend of pressure and potential concessions to put on the table in Alaska.
Meanwhile, Europe and Kyiv are coalescing around their own counter-proposal: a ceasefire first, enforceable security guarantees, and no unilateral withdrawals that would reward aggression. If Washington wants more flexibility in any eventual deal, it needs to set the terms before these conditions harden.
Why Now
Reset the leverage mix. Pairing resumed arms with new sanctions threats gives Washington bargaining tools in both directions.
Clarify the message. After the Witkoff mission, Alaska offers a chance to align leader-level narratives while keeping sensitive details off the public record.
Pre-empt allied framing. The longer the delay, the more Europe and Ukraine lock in red lines that limit U.S. options. This returns control of the narrative to Washington and Moscow rather than cede it to Brussels and Kyiv.
Exploit the Alaskan stage. Alaska’s geography underscores pragmatic proximity, Arctic influence, and shared security corridors — all part of a wider strategic conversation. More importantly, the setting is in a U.S. territory that was purchased from Russia in the late 19th century, coming as close to neutral ground as possible without involving third parties (Saudi Arabia and Türkiye were both vying to host this summit).
Create a domestic “win.” The meeting itself between the presidents will be sold as a win on the domestic American and Russian fronts. Even without a treaty, an agreement on a freeze line, a sanctions roadmap, or humanitarian access can be sold as forward momentum.
The Endgame — What Each Leader Really Wants
For Trump, Alaska is a pivot point. He wants to recast U.S.–Russia relations away from permanent hostility, freeing bandwidth to confront China. A symbolic thaw could also rally domestic support and project an image of dealmaking mastery — even if the underlying compromises remain opaque.
For Putin, the calculus is survival with advantage. He seeks sanctions relief, recognition of Russian influence in its near abroad, and a pause in Western military pressure — all without giving the appearance of retreat. A handshake in Alaska that signals parity with Washington, on U.S. soil, is itself a strategic victory in narrative terms.
Both leaders want to leave the table with more leverage than they brought, even if that means agreeing to vague, easily reinterpreted commitments. The details can be deferred; the optics cannot.
More importantly, both leaders have longer term concerns that the Ukraine war. Both Trump and Putin recognize that the shape of their bilateral dynamic cannot be dictated by European interests. In their direct meeting, the bilateral Russian American relationship is likely to take precedence over the Ukraine war.
As I have discussed before, American global policies have shifted under the Trump administration. It has prioritized the containment and deterrence of rising Chinese power -both economic and military, and reengaging with Russia is a cornerstone of this policy. As China approaches nuclear peer status with the U.S., the unprecedented scenario of having two nuclear peers dictated a shift in American security focus that envisions decoupling Russia from China over the medium to long terms.
On the Russian side, Putin is well aware that in a bilateral partnership with China facing the West, Russia will end up as the junior partner due to the economic disparity with China and the latter’s growing military might. This scenario, in the long term, could see Russia ceding some control over its foreign policy, an option that no Russian leader would welcome if there are alternatives.
Filter Through the Noise
With these elements in mind, and as the summit approaches, here are a few pointers to keep in mind as you look at the coverage that will hound you in the coming days.
Watch omissions, not just words.
What is not said is as important as what is said. If key terms like “sanctions” vanish from the language, it will mark a policy shift.
For example,
If there are fewer references to the Ukraine war than to bilateral cooperation between the U.S. and Russia in the outcome statements, it will indicate a soft American disengagement from support to Ukraine (at least on the short term).
If the word ‘occupation’ is conspicuously absent from the American narrative, then it marks a continued shift in policy toward the endgame outcome of the war.
Decode vague labels.
“Strategic stability” might mask talks on Arctic military limits, nuclear posture, or trade routes — link the phrase to the week’s flashpoints, and the following weeks moves like agreements, sanction relief, or increased support to Ukraine.
Similarly, “humanitarian measures” could mean anything from prisoner exchanges to temporary ceasefires, so match the term to recent back-channel discussions.
Vague terms are purposely designed to be interpretable, flexible and open to options. They give both sides leeway for engagement without locking the actors into specific positions.
Separate theater from leverage.
Optics are crucial for this event. Both presidents and their teams will be very cognizant of the visuals. Everything from the seating arrangements, handshake angles, and pauses will be crafted for impact.
So, when looking at the images coming out of the event, ask who is presenting it, and who benefits from its optics. Compare between those coming out of Washington, Moscow, and elsewhere, looking at which angles they choose to show, and which ones they focus on.
Images are curated to elicit specific reactions, try to identify what reactions each image is trying to evoke in you.
Ask: who benefits from this image?
As You Navigate the News…
The Alaska summit will be cast in real time as a triumph, a failure, or a draw — depending on who’s doing the talking. But the real story will be in what is left unsaid, in the coded phrases, and in the tangible shifts that follow. If you watch for these signals, you’ll see past the spectacle — and spot the summit’s real outcomes and impacts before they’re admitted publicly.
Next in the series: We’ll peek inside the strategy in Washington and Moscow to examine the real drivers, motivations, and incentives behind this summit — and how other capitals are already preparing to counter its outcomes.
This is great! A multi causal view of the issue in a concise article. Well done!