No Cease-Fire, Few Concessions: What Really Happened at the Alaska Summit

The much-anticipated summit between former President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska concluded with plenty of pageantry but little progress. Wall Street Journal reporting and analysis published August 16, 2025, paints a picture of a high-profile meeting that fell short of its strategic objectives.

Optics Over Outcomes

Putin arrived to a warm U.S. reception, complete with ceremonial flyovers and red-carpet treatment. But despite the spectacle, “the Russian gets his photo-op but makes no apparent concessions” (WSJ Editorial Board). The summit offered no breakthrough—“There was no cease-fire” (WSJ Editorial Board).

As the Wall Street Journal put it in its news analysis, “Despite the pageantry… the meeting failed to achieve tangible results” (WSJ Report: “Trump Rolled Out the Red Carpet for Putin”). That sentiment echoed throughout the Journal’s coverage: the Alaska event provided optics that may benefit Putin diplomatically, without yielding substance on the Ukraine front.

A Shift in Trump’s Messaging

Shortly after returning from Alaska, Trump altered his tone. Rather than continue to push for a cease-fire, “Trump, back from Alaska, now says Ukraine and Russia should proceed straight to seeking a full peace deal instead of a cease-fire” (WSJ Live Coverage). This shift signals a new phase in Trump’s approach, marking a clear retreat from his earlier push for an immediate halt to hostilities.

Security Guarantees on the Table?

One potentially significant development came after the summit: Trump reportedly told European leaders he might back U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine as part of a broader peace framework (WSJ Analysis: “Trump Tells Europeans He Is Open to U.S. Security Guarantees in Ukraine”). This proposal, if pursued, could dramatically reshape the framework for U.S. involvement in postwar European security, and signal a more assertive American role than Trump has previously advocated.

Editorial Warning: Beware of Legitimizing Putin

The Wall Street Journal editorial board and its video opinion segments struck a cautionary tone. The key concern: that the U.S. risks legitimizing Putin without extracting commitments. As summarized in both formats: “No Ukraine cease-fire from Putin” (WSJ Editorial and Video Wrapups).

Conclusion: A Summit That Raised More Questions Than It Answered

In summary, the Alaska summit delivered high-profile optics and signaled tactical shifts in Trump’s rhetoric. But it failed to secure concrete commitments from Putin. As WSJ reporting consistently emphasized:

Whether these diplomatic gestures evolve into substantive peace talks, or prove to be empty political theater, remains to be seen.

Eduard Topol’s Open Letter to Donald Trump: Why Putin Cannot End the War in Ukraine

On August 11, 2025, Soviet-born writer and filmmaker Eduard Topol published an open letter addressed to former U.S. President Donald Trump.

The letter, released by Kontinent, a Russian-language outlet in the United States, has since circulated widely online. In it, Topol argues that Russian President Vladimir Putin cannot stop the war in Ukraine, not because he does not want to, but because history shows that ending foreign wars has often triggered domestic unrest and even regime collapse in Russia.

Below is the letter in full. 

Dear Mr. President!
Dear Donald!

As the author of fifty books and a dozen films about Russia, I consider myself entitled to inform you.

You must know that he (Putin) cannot stop the war with Ukraine, even if you gift him your Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Trump Tower in New York, and a dozen of your golf clubs.

And not because he doesn’t want a break from war, but because he simply cannot.

Because he knows Russian history not from Medinsky’s textbooks, but the real one:

The return of Russian troops from Europe after the victory over Napoleon led to the anti-tsarist “Decembrist” uprising in 1825.

Russia’s defeat in the Russo-Japanese War led to the 1905 Revolution.

The desertion of a million Russian soldiers from the Russo-German front during World War I forced Emperor Nicholas II to abdicate and caused the February Revolution of 1917.

The peace signed by Lenin with Germany allowed the Bolsheviks to execute the entire royal family.

The withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan in February 1989 marked the beginning of the USSR’s collapse.

Knowing this, Putin cannot end the war with Ukraine and bring his troops home.

Only the opportunity in May 1945 to keep almost his entire army in Europe as occupation forces helped Stalin avoid a postwar coup.

That is why Putin dreams of occupying Ukraine, as well as the Baltics, Finland, Poland, etc., to keep his army far away from Moscow.

He remembers how 525,000 soldiers returning from Afghanistan in 1989 turned into bandits—“Afghantsy”—who terrorized the entire population of the USSR.

And he knows what will happen if one and a half million soldiers, trained to kill, loot, and rape professionally, return home from the Ukrainian front.

The war with Ukraine has allowed Putin to get rid of two million of the most active opponents of his regime, whom he forced to flee Russia, while the rest of the young Russian men he either drove to the front or recruited into punitive services.

Today, any war—against Ukraine, the Baltics, NATO, anyone at all—is the best way to enforce Russia’s obedience to Putin and his junta.

Unfortunately, none of your advisers will explain this to you before your meeting with Putin, but you can check my arguments with Jack Matlock and Michael McFaul.

I do not want Putin—a KGB man, a thief, and a murderer of millions—to keep brazenly deceiving you, lying, and misleading my President.

Of course, I am not a military expert or political scientist, but I am a writer with a good memory.

I remember how Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II managed to push oil prices down to $9 per barrel, gave the Afghans “Stingers,” and thereby stopped Moscow’s takeover of Afghanistan and destroyed the USSR.

If you want to stop Putin and the imperial ambitions of at least half of Russia’s population, you need to do the same—bring oil prices down to at least $25 per barrel and give Ukraine the weapons that will help it crush the aggressor.

As for your desire to establish U.S.-Russian business partnerships, not in words but in reality, this could happen in a hundred years—or never at all.

If you are interested in why, call me and I will explain.

Respectfully,

EDUARD TOPOL, citizen of the U.S. and Israel and Author of International Bestsellers Red Square, Submarine U-147, Red Snow, and the new books Criminal Kremlin: From Lenin to Putin: 57 Kremlin Murders and Operation Frantic Joe

Closing Thoughts

Whether one agrees with Topol’s prescriptions or not, his message is clear: Putin is locked into war as a strategy for survival. The historical parallels he draws, from Napoleon to Afghanistan, serve as warnings that for Russia, peace has often been more destabilizing than conflict.

For Trump, and for the West more broadly, Topol’s point is straightforward: the only way to curb Putin’s ambitions is through pressure and support for Ukraine, not compromise.

President Trump signed H.R. 3364 (2 August 2017)

On 2 August 2017, President Donald Trump signed H.R. 3364, the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which included provisions related to sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The law, specifically in sections 253 and 257, reaffirmed the United States’ policy of not recognizing territorial changes effected by force, including Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea. These sections explicitly stated that the U.S. “does not recognize territorial changes effected by force” and will “never recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea by the Government of the Russian Federation or the separation of any portion of Ukrainian territory through the use of military force.”

Hope for Ukraine Responds to Deadly Attack on Kyiv

August 1, 2025

In the wake of a devastating attack on Kyiv that claimed the lives of numerous civilians, Hope for Ukraine has issued a strong statement urging decisive international action.

Yuriy Boyechko, CEO of Hope for Ukraine, emphasized the urgency of the situation and outlined three key steps the United States and its allies must take to help prevent further casualties and pressure Russia toward a ceasefire:

  1. Public Condemnation: “The U.S. must publicly condemn—at the highest level, whether by the State Department or the President—the attack on Kyiv last night that claimed so many civilian lives,” Boyechko said.
  2. Immediate Military Aid: He called on the U.S. to “immediately announce a new shipment of military aid to Ukraine” to support the country’s defense.
  3. Use of Frozen Russian Assets: Finally, Boyechko urged the U.S. and the EU to authorize the use of frozen Russian assets to fund military support for Ukraine. “This third move would send the strongest possible message to the Kremlin that the U.S. and EU are no longer playing games—and that Ukraine will be defended with resources taken directly from Russian frozen assets.”

Hope for Ukraine continues to advocate for policies that protect civilians and uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty amid ongoing aggression.

For media inquiries or further information, please contact:
Gabriella Ramirez
Executive Assistant, Hope for Ukraine