Trump and Putin redefine political distance

Many people discovered something they did not know before: the United States and Russia, which they used to imagine as being far apart, are separated by a distance of approximately 100 kilometres at the northernmost point of Alaska. This insignificant geographical distance would not have attracted attention had it not been for an exceptional event: the meeting between Trump and Putin in the heart of Alaska.
The meeting was not just a routine diplomatic scene. Trump applauded Putin upon his arrival, as if geography itself gave the US president a boost of symbolic acceptance. Observers young and old began to wonder: Does the proximity between the two countries mean a convergence in politics?´-or-do history and geography change nothing in the ambitions of leaders?
The answer seems complicated. Trump, the man who changed the rules of American domestic and foreign policy, chose the location of the meeting symbolically: Alaska, the gateway to the Arctic, a place unknown to many Americans´-or-Europeans, suddenly became the scene of a lesson in geopolitical realism. As Nicholas Kristof wrote: ‘Trump doesn t need a big stage to make his mark. Sometimes a small place is enough, even if it s on the edge of the world.’
First, the summit is a political gift to Putin, according to Kristof in an article in The New York Times, and any competent negotiator should be able to extract something from Russia in return for this gift. It was unwise to hold the summit in Alaska, which some Russians still covet, even though Tsar Alexander II sold it to the United States in 1867 for two cents an acre. The summit s location lends Putin a legitimacy that Europe does not like, while in-dir-ectly reinforcing the idea he clearly favours: the flexibility of national borders.
The meeting exposed Europe s vulnerability to unilateral American policies. And the worst-case scenario, giving Putin territory, did not happen. Allies accustomed to American leadership found themselves faced with a surprising reality: Trump does not adhere to what would be expected of a traditional administration, acting according to his own whims in a manner that is sometimes reminiscent of decades of isolationism and pragmatism. Major American and European media outlets that are not friendly to Trump have noted that ‘Europe felt as if it had been left alone, while its alliances were being tested in the face of an American-Russian moment that no one had anticipated.’
Or, in the words of Wolfgang Ischinger, former German ambassador to the United States, who wrote, ‘Putin got the red carpet treatment with Trump, while Trump got nothing. As feared: no ceasefire, no peace.’
But the outcome of the brief Alaska meeting, and the talks that will follow, reveal an underlying problem facing the Europeans. They have no strategy of their own to end the war, let alone defeat Moscow. Instead, they are racing against time to keep up with Trump s changing positions, trying to bind him to certain red lines that protect Ukrainian sovereignty and European security.
This is why the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’ in support of Ukraine was launched by French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in a video conference, with the aim of preparing for the next stages of peace talks on Ukraine.
The Financial Times, which European leaders never fail to place on their desks every morning, also saw this meeting as reflecting more than just passing diplomacy: ‘It is a moment to redraw the symbolic lines between the major powers, with Alaska seen as a theatre for -dir-ect negotiation away from UN protocols.’
But what does this mean for ordinary people? For the first time, many people felt that global politics was not so distant from them, and that top leaders sometimes meet in places that almost anyone on the map can visit. This simple discovery changes popular perceptions of power, symbolism, and the relationship between geographical proximity and political decision-making.
There are many possible scenarios for the aftermath of the meeting. Pressure may increase on Europe to reassess its alliances and defence strategies, with the possibility of internal tensions arising over reliance on the United States as a traditional protector. On the American scene, the meeting will have political repercussions for Trump himself: he succeeded in attracting international attention, but he opened the door to European criticism and may have increased doubts about his country s approach to foreign policy.
From an analytical perspective, the meeting also illustrates the power of the individual in international politics. Trump, with his unilateral decision, overturned the expectations of allies and public opinion. Putin, by agreeing to the meeting, showed that geographical proximity can be turned into a means of psychological and political pressure. Here, geography intersects with politics, symbolism with decision-making, and popularity with alliances.
The most important question remains: Will the meeting in Alaska lead to real changes in global politics, and will the war in Ukraine end as Putin wanted and bet on Trump to humiliate Europe, which is besieging him?
Or, according to Cold War historian Sergei Radchenko, ‘Putin is a stubborn opponent, and yes, he won this round mainly because he got something for nothing. However, Trump did not sell Ukraine.’
All this begs the obvious question: Was the Trump-Putin meeting just a temporary symbolic gesture? History and future events will determine that, but what cannot be denied is that many have begun to watch the leaders closely and rethink the distance between countries, between influence, and between individual decisions.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov s arrival at his hotel in Alaska wearing a T-shirt with ‘CCCP’ written on it, an abbreviation for ‘Soviet -union-’ in Cyrillic letters, was a deliberate declaration of his intentions. For Putin, it is clear that Russia, with its current borders, is a stop on the road to restoring an empire. Europeans understand this, but they doubt that Trump understands it,´-or-even cares.
Ultimately, Alaska is not just a place on the map. It is a reminder that politics sometimes does not need distant continents to become transnational, and that geographical proximity, when combined with personal power, can have global resonance. Trump and Putin, in this meeting, redefined distance: geographically small, politically huge.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1