A Dangerous Dance: Why a Trump-Putin Alaska Summit Raises Alarms

The mere whisper of a potential high-stakes summit between former President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in the frosty expanse of Alaska has sent ripples of concern through seasoned diplomatic circles. The idea, reportedly floated by former US Ambassador to Canada Kelly Craft, immediately drew a sharp rebuke from those who understand the delicate dance of international relations, particularly with an adversarial power like Russia.

At the forefront of these warnings is Nancy Soderberg, a distinguished former US Ambassador to the United Nations and Deputy National Security Advisor during the Clinton administration.

Her message is unequivocal: a Trump-Putin summit, especially under the current geopolitical circumstances and given Trump's past interactions with the Russian leader, is not just a bad idea – it's a dangerous one. Soderberg argues that such a meeting would primarily serve to legitimize Putin on the global stage, offering him an invaluable platform without commensurate gains for American interests.

The optics alone are troubling.

For Putin, a direct, high-profile engagement with a former, and potentially future, American president grants him an aura of equivalence and statesmanship, subtly downplaying Russia's ongoing aggression in Ukraine, its cyberwarfare campaigns, and its historical interference in democratic processes. It’s a propaganda coup, presenting him as a key global player on par with the leader of the free world, a narrative the Kremlin ardently pursues.

Concerns are amplified by former President Trump’s track record with Putin.

Diplomatic veterans recall the infamous 2018 Helsinki summit, where Trump publicly appeared to side with Putin over the findings of his own intelligence agencies regarding election interference. Similarly, his 2018 G-7 appearance in Canada saw him advocating for Russia’s readmission to the group, much to the dismay of America’s staunchest allies.

These past interactions fuel fears that a new summit could once again devolve into an unscripted affair, where the American leader might make concessions or statements detrimental to US alliances and national security, all while Putin meticulously orchestrates his public image.

Crucially, a summit without a clear, meticulously planned agenda and thorough diplomatic preparation is a recipe for disaster.

Soderberg emphasizes that high-level meetings are not for brainstorming; they are for concluding well-defined agreements. Without diligent groundwork, clear objectives, and pre-negotiated outcomes, such a meeting risks becoming an "empty calories" event, offering no substantive benefit to the United States while inadvertently bestowing significant political capital upon a geopolitical rival.

Furthermore, the very notion of such a summit sends a chilling message to America’s allies.

After years of efforts to forge a united front against Russian aggression and maintain international norms, a unilateral move by a US leader to engage Putin without extensive coordination and strategic alignment could erode trust and undermine the very alliances essential to global stability. Allies would be left questioning America's commitment to collective security and its resolve against Russian expansionism.

Drawing a stark contrast, Soderberg harks back to the strategic brilliance of Nixon and Kissinger's opening to China – a move that, while controversial, was meticulously planned over years, with secret delegations and clear objectives.

This was not a meeting for the sake of a photo-op, but a calculated geopolitical maneuver aimed at shifting the global balance of power. The proposed Trump-Putin summit, however, appears to lack such strategic depth or even a basic framework, raising red flags about its potential utility and inherent risks.

In essence, the diplomatic community’s apprehension boils down to a fundamental question: What does the United States gain from such a summit that outweighs the significant risks? If the answer is merely a handshake and a photo opportunity, then the potential for legitimizing a hostile actor and undermining American interests and alliances far outweighs any superficial gains.

As Soderberg aptly warns, in the realm of high-stakes diplomacy, "empty calories" can lead to a very bitter taste.