By Jorge Elbaum on August 19, 2025 from Buenos Aires
Vladimir Putin, photo: AFP
The Alaska summit turned into a political victory for Vladimir Putin. For three years, they insisted on isolating him—they called him a pariah—and tried to pressure him into accepting a truce, at a time when his troops are steadily advancing toward Kiev.
Far from bowing to pressure, ultimatums, and previous threats from the US president himself, he was literally welcomed with a red carpet, flashed his most affable smile, and flattered the tycoon-turned-president by stating that “there would have been no war in Ukraine if Trump had been in power in 2022.”
In pursuit of his coveted Nobel Peace Prize, Trump’s narcissism was satiated, allowing the discussions to focus on areas of common interest such as the expiration of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires on February 5, 2026.
The British magazine The Economist considered that the meeting turned into a geopolitical nightmare consistent with the humiliation suffered by Volodymyr Zelensky at the meeting held last February at the White House.
The propagandists of Western European supremacy—trained in a deep-rooted Russophobia—forgot to consider that the meeting was dominated by figures with very different backgrounds. On the one hand, a millionaire seasoned in the art of buying, selling, deceiving, swindling, and directing reality shows such as The Apprentice. A tycoon turned president who was convicted on three counts: sexual abuse, defamation, and falsification of business records. A president who, moreover, was protected by the Supreme Court from being prosecuted for coup plotting. Opposite him, a lawyer, a former intelligence agency official for two decades, the protagonist of the restoration of Russian national pride. In short: a card-shark facing a chess player steeped in patriotism.
The meeting was framed by an unusual proliferation of communication. Every gesture, wink, and nod became an element of symbolic altercation. The decision to hold the meeting at the Elmendorf-Richardson Joint Military Base was the first message of intimidation.
Those in charge of protocol speculated that simply entering military territory would intimidate the Kremlin leader. One of the first responses came from Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who was seen on Thursday afternoon in Anchorage wearing a sweatshirt emblazoned with the letters CCCP. These initials are the Russian abbreviation for the USSR. The territory of Alaska belonged to Russia until 1867, when Tsar Alexander II decided to sell it for approximately $7 million.
Much of the globalist establishment, and its media mercenaries, predicted with undisguised annoyance that Putin would be unyielding. In this context, the mere fact that the summit took place was a success for the Moscow leader, who prevailed over Brussels’ efforts to prevent the meeting from taking place or to make it fail.
From France, Emmanuel Macron tried to downplay the meeting, stating that “it is normal for there to be a bilateral meeting between Russia and the United States. The good thing is that there is coordination with Europe on issues that concern it.” The contradictions between Brussels and Washington are not the result of Trump’s outburst, but the consequence of alternative approaches to dealing with the rebellion on the farm of the BRICS+, whose emergence is disrupting the monolithic financial establishment that has characterized international relations for the last half-century.
Europe tried to turn the meeting into a failure, while the Kiev regime desperately called for more pressure on Putin. The US response was swift: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged European Union leaders to “shut up” in the face of evidence that they were seeking to derail the summit.
The speed of change is causing confusion among those who were (badly) accustomed to jointly guiding global governance, appealing to the catchphrase of a “rules-based order,” which is foreign to the United Nations Charter. These rules were never debated or approved by any country and are questioned from different perspectives by multilateral logic: (a) Moscow’s defense of strategic security against the 32 NATO countries; (b) the People’s Republic’s right to establish non-interventionist cooperation mechanisms while asserting its economic and commercial preponderance, based on productivity and competitiveness; (c) the paradigm of autonomy put forward by Brazil in asserting the sovereignty of its legal institutions; (d) the dignity and resilience of India, which is willing to build bridges with its former regional adversary after the tariff penalties imposed by Washington; and (e) South Africa, which is leading the accusations before the International Criminal Court regarding the genocide in Gaza.
The Russian offensive came in February 2023, but the strategic analysis examined by the Kremlin’s military commanders weighed not only the encirclement promoted by NATO, but also previous invasions, both by Napoleon and Hitler.
Previous studies also considered official British documents published by the National Archives in 1998, which leaked Winston Churchill’s proposals to attack the USSR in 1945. The research was conducted by analyst Jonathan Walker, a member of the Military History Committee. It was published in 2013 under the title Operation Unthinkable. At the end of World War II, President Harry Truman rejected Churchill’s proposal because he had a more far-reaching plan: the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which secured Japan’s surrender and were intended to terrify the Soviets.
The current fight within NATO is linked to the fact that it was the United States that pushed for the siege and harassment of the Russian Federation since the 1990s. But now it has decided to step aside, considering that it must focus on two priority enemies: internal immigrants—all considered criminals and drug traffickers—and the Chinese.
Meanwhile, the People’s Republic displayed its customary parsimony based on the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership that links Xi Jinping with the Kremlin. This agreement includes an upcoming joint meeting to address the geopolitical ramifications of the meeting held at the Military Base.
Meanwhile, the dismayed globalist Democrats, together with European Union President Ursula Von der Leyen, assured that the summit could become a new Yalta Conference, without European presence.
Putin’s two victories, political and military, seem to limit Brussels’ ability to propose new “Unthinkable Operations.” What they call the West is broken.
Source: Pagina 12, translation Resumen Latinoamericano – English