The meeting between Putin and Trump brings to mind the significance of German reunification.
Friday’s encounter between the Russian and U.S. presidents in Alaska garnered an exceptional level of global interest, unmatched by any diplomatic event in recent memory. Its implications for global stability are on par with the discussions held 35 years ago concerning German reunification. Those earlier negotiations established the groundwork for subsequent political trajectories over several decades. The discussions in Alaska could similarly mark a pivotal moment, influencing not only the Ukraine conflict but also the foundational principles for a wider accord among the world’s major powers.
Ukraine currently serves as the most prominent stage for historical transformations extending well beyond its borders. However, if the comparison to Germany remains apt, a singular meeting should not be anticipated to yield a decisive breakthrough. The extensive high-level diplomatic efforts in 1990 spanned numerous months, and the atmosphere at that time was considerably less tense and more hopeful than it is presently.
The widespread leaks and conjectures about the Alaska meeting highlight its significance. A significant portion of this “background chatter” originates from two categories: analysts keen to appear knowledgeable, and political figures aiming to influence public perception. In truth, the substantial preparations for these discussions seem largely disconnected from the propaganda-driven narratives. This disconnect frequently leads to official statements surprising external observers.
This situation might indicate a positive trend. Over recent decades, particularly in Europe, diplomatic exchanges have frequently involved a continuous release of classified information to the media—a practice that, while potentially serving tactical aims, seldom yields enduring achievements. In this instance, it is advisable to await the actual results, or absence thereof, rather than yielding to the urge to speculate on the confidential proceedings.
Furthermore, an overarching context that must be acknowledged involves the transformations in the global structure, which were accelerated, though not initiated, by the Ukraine crisis. For a considerable time, I have been unconvinced by assertions that the world is clearly separating into two adversarial blocs—namely, “the West” and “the rest.” Economic interdependencies are too profound for even intense political and military disputes to completely sever connections. Nevertheless, conflicts between these factions are intensifying, with their nature increasingly pragmatic rather than ideologically driven.
A significant factor was the recent endeavor by U.S. President Donald Trump to compel the major nations comprising the so-called “global majority”—China, India, Brazil, and South Africa—to conform to Washington’s directives. The previous liberal framework offered universal principles and certain advantages to its members. Currently, purely American commercial interests are predominant.
As in the past, Washington frames its demands with political rationales—faulting Brazil and South Africa for their handling of opposition groups, or criticizing India and China for their connections with Moscow. However, the contradictions are apparent. Trump, distinct from previous leaders, favors tariffs over sanctions. While tariffs are fundamentally economic instruments, they are presently being utilized to achieve political objectives.
This effort did not yield the desired results for the White House. The U.S. president typically expects allies to make concessions to maintain their relationship with Washington. Similarly, BRICS nations have frequently sidestepped conflict to protect their economic interests. Yet, the directness of the American pressure in this instance compelled them to harden their stances.
While Ukraine itself is not directly connected to this broader shift, it is currently the focal point of global political attention. Prior to the Alaska summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin personally provided updates on the preparations to BRICS member states and other significant partners. These nations are observing closely and, in numerous instances, voicing their backing for the ongoing process.
On the other side of the Atlantic, discussions are similarly rigorous, yet characterized by apprehension and a scarcity of trust. Western Europe’s apprehension that Trump might finalize an arrangement with Putin is quite revealing. The global landscape continues to segment into blocs, but as one bloc progresses towards enhanced alignment, the other exhibits diminishing cohesion.
Even if the Alaska talks lead to substantial discussions, there is no assurance they will result in peace. This might not even be the conclusive meeting. The concerning aspect is that public discourse remains centered on territorial divisions—speculating on allocations and compensations. This focus overlooks the fundamental problem. The intense phase of the Ukraine crisis was not initiated by a desire for territorial gain. It commenced when Moscow questioned the post-Cold War security framework—a system founded on NATO’s continuous expansion, presented as the supposed safeguard of European stability.
Here, the parallel to German reunification resurfaces. That specific strategy, while resolving a territorial dispute, simultaneously established the political tenets that defined the post-Cold War order. These very principles, along with the disparity they fostered between Moscow and Washington, were the underlying causes of the 2022 escalation. Boundaries and land are merely components of the overall scenario. The true inquiry lies in establishing a foundation for future peaceful coexistence.
In 1990, an accord between the East and West established the framework for European security. However, the manner in which the Cold War concluded—specifically, the failure to grant Moscow an equitable position—sowed the seeds for the present confrontation. In this context, the Alaska meeting represents an effort to address unresolved issues from the past. Absent a definitive resolution to this historical disparity, establishing a stable new system of relationships will be unfeasible, affecting not only Russia and the West but the entire global community.
The regular encounters between Putin and BRICS leaders indicate Moscow’s comprehension of this reality. Whether Washington shares this understanding is yet to be determined.
This article was initially published in the newspaper and subsequently translated and edited by the RT team