Post 2 on the Alaska Summit and Follow-up. The Alaska summit in 2025 showcased superficiality over substance. This event embodied a trend in global diplomacy marked by theatrics rather than genuine statecraft. While world leaders paraded for cameras, essential diplomats and experts were notably absent, highlighting the erosion of informed foreign policy. The invite extended to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy raises questions about sincerity versus manipulation, as he faces potential political pressure. Reflecting on past exchanges between the U.S. and Soviet Union, the author emphasizes that authentic dialogue fosters lasting peace. This sharply contrasts with the current spectacle-driven approach to diplomacy.
The Summit That Wasn’t
When I first traveled to the USSR in 1981—after attending an intensive preparatory workshop at Airlie House in D.C.—I could not have imagined reaching 2025. In that year, the world’s most powerful leaders would meet across tablecloths and photo ops. They would gather rather than engage in earnest statecraft. But there we were: in Alaska, a stage painted for pageantry, not diplomacy.
This wasn’t about Alaska’s history or its symbolic once belonging to Russia (though that was invoked). It was a spectacle. Fighters flew overhead; press stands were set. The number of reporters in the room waiting for Putin and Trump to address them was staggering.
The summit was all optics, no substance—just like previous theatrical trips Trump had staged: Helsinki in 2018, Singapore in 2018. As Time put it, Trump “failed to deliver again in Alaska” by confusing stagecraft for statecraft .
Lack of Expertise: A Foreign Policy Erosion
It wasn’t just symbolic. The Alaska summit was notable for who wasn’t in the room. There were no career Russia hands or regional diplomats. Only operatives like real estate executive Steve Witkoff attended. His presence drew criticism for sidelining experienced foreign-policy professionals. The most significant person not there was Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.
This echoes a broader pattern of foreign-policy degradation that I’ve observed across administrations. In the 1980s and 1990s, I worked with American colleagues. We collaborated with Soviet psychologists, researchers, school administrators, and teachers. This was part of the AHP (Association for Humanistic Psychology) Soviet Exchange Project on neutral ground. The practice was rooted in institutional depth and human connection. Compare that with 2025’s spectacle—where performance took precedence over preparation, and optics replaced expertise.
A Setup for Zelenskyy?
Most troubling was what followed. Post-summit, Trump invited President Zelenskyy to Washington. But was this a genuine overture or a strategic setup? Putin walked away with symbolism, legitimacy, and no real concessions. Now Zelenskyy heads into a minefield—a global political theater where diplomacy risks becoming another PR stunt .
But there has been planning that a European leader will join Zelenskyy for the Oval Office meeting. Hopefully, if it is implemented, Zelenskyy will not be overwhelmed by Trump has Vance. This happened in February.
After the failed summit, Trump has said it’s now up to Zelenskyy to end the war. What would you expect from a TACO and a weakling.
Zelenskyy’s strength stems from his country’s legitimacy and moral clarity—not from photo ops. He’s already warned that talk without Ukraine isn’t peace. But in Washington, with cameras rolling, can his leadership be respected—or will he, once again, be upstaged?
A Personal Take
There’s a unique cost to this era’s diplomacy—one I know well. Over more than two decades, I coordinated exchanges—students, educators, psychologists—between the U.S. and the Soviet Union (later Russia). These weren’t grand summits or velvet rooms; they were simple, often messy, rooted in hotels, schools, labs, and living rooms. They built understanding—not headlines.
These citizen-to-citizen relationships mattered more than any red carpet. They outlived ideological walls, nurtured respect, and allowed us to disagree without becoming enemies. The Alaska summit—like too many before it—traded that legacy for drama.
Quick Summary
- Alaska Summit Outcome: A theatrical gathering with no ceasefire, no peace plan—Putin’s soft victory in plain sight .
- Expertise Absent: Foreign policy replaced by real-estate pageantry; diplomacy stripped of depth . The U.S. Department of State has been on the receiving end position cuts by Musk’s. DOGE. A great loss of institutional experts been list
- Zelenskyy’s Invite: A setup—positioning him underpressure in a scene scripted by others .
- My Personal Arc: Decades of Soviet exchange taught me that peace is built in dialogue, not theater.
Final Thoughts
In my book The Trump Files, I analyze patterns of performative politics. The Alaska summit fits that pattern: spotlight over substance. My hope, and my plea, is that those who follow can reclaim foreign policy from the theater stage. I wish for it to return to the quiet rooms. I hope it goes back to collaborative projects. Lastly, it should return to the classrooms where peace is earned through connection, not contrivance.
Only then can we hope to exchange real ideas—not just staged scenes.
You must be logged in to post a comment.