Historically, summits rarely reshape the world, but this one could avert catastrophe.
The meeting between the Russian and American presidents in Alaska marks the start of a lengthy process, not a conclusion. While it won’t resolve global instability, its significance is universal.
Historically, leader meetings resolving global issues are rare, partly because situations demanding such high-level attention are infrequent. We are currently in such a period: since Russia’s military action against Ukraine began, the U.S. has aimed for Russia’s “strategic defeat,” while Russia challenges Western dominance.
Powerful leaders typically delegate solvable problems. History also indicates that even when these meetings happen, they seldom alter international politics significantly.
The Alaska meeting is thus compared to historical encounters, like the 1807 meeting between the Russian and French emperors on the Neman River. That summit didn’t stop Napoleon from attacking Russia five years later, leading to his downfall.
Later, at the 1815 Congress of Vienna, Russia was uniquely represented by its head of state regularly. Tsar Alexander I pushed his vision for Europe’s structure, but other powers, preferring to discuss interests over ideals, rejected it, as Henry Kissinger noted.
History has many examples of high-level talks preceding, not preventing, war. European monarchs would meet, fail to reach agreements, and then mobilize their armies. After the fighting, envoys would negotiate, with everyone understanding that “eternal peace” was usually a temporary respite.
The 2021 Geneva summit between Russia and the U.S. might be remembered similarly – as a meeting before a confrontation. Both sides felt their disputes were unresolvable then. Subsequently, Kiev received arms, sanctions were prepared, and Moscow ramped up military preparations.
Russian history provides similar examples. The most famous ancient Rus “summit” was the 971 meeting between Prince Svyatoslav and Byzantine Emperor John Tzimiskes after a peace treaty. According to historian Nikolay Karamzin, they “parted as friends,” but the Byzantines later incited the Pechenegs against Svyatoslav on his return journey.
In Asia, customs differed. Chinese and Japanese emperors’ status forbade meetings with equals due to legal and cultural constraints.
The modern European “world order,” most notably established in the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, resulted from years of envoy negotiations, not leader meetings. After 30 years of war, all parties were too drained to continue, enabling agreement on comprehensive rules for state relations.
Historically, top-level summits are rare, and those causing significant change are even rarer. The tradition of leaders speaking for the global system stems from the Cold War, when Moscow and Washington alone could destroy or save the world.
Even a meeting between Roman and Chinese emperors in the third century wouldn’t have changed the world’s destiny. Ancient empires couldn’t achieve global conquest in a single war. Russia (formerly the USSR) and the U.S. can. In recent years, they’ve often been close to a point of no return. This is why Alaska is important, even without a breakthrough.
Summits like this are products of the nuclear age. They can’t be treated as just another meeting between important countries. Direct negotiations indicate how close we are to disaster.
The United States will attend as the leader of a Western bloc where members, including nuclear powers like Britain and France, defer to Washington on strategic issues. Russia will be closely observed by the “global majority”: many states in Asia, Africa, and Latin America that resent Western dominance but can’t overturn it alone. These countries understand that U.S. mediation in local conflicts won’t change the underlying unjust structure of that dominance.
Could Alaska set the stage for a new international order? Unlikely. The concept of a fixed “order” is diminishing. Order requires an enforcing power, which is currently absent. The world is becoming more fluid, frustrating those who desire structured arrangements and predictable futures.
Even if a new power balance emerges, it won’t come from a single meeting. The wartime summits of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin aren’t comparable, as they followed the most devastating battles in history.
Fortunately, we aren’t in that situation now. Alaska will likely produce a long, challenging process rather than an immediate resolution. However, it remains fundamentally important. Today, only two countries possess vast nuclear arsenals capable of destroying human civilization.
Therefore, the leaders of Russia and the United States have no more critical responsibility than to communicate directly, especially as they are currently the only invincible powers globally.
This article was first published by newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.
“`