<p>The summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska was billed as a turning point that could influence the Russia-Ukraine war, reset US-Russia ties, and reshape global trade politics. Yet, the meeting, rich in symbolism and optics, produced little substance. No agreement emerged on Ukraine, and the world was left with ambiguity, competing narratives, and political theatre.</p>.<p>The opening was steeped in ceremony – smiles, handshakes, a ride in Trump’s limousine, and military flyovers signaling warmth rarely afforded to a Russian leader on US soil. Both leaders described the talks as “direct” and “sincere.” Putin suggested that an “understanding” had been reached and urged Europe and Kyiv not to block progress. Trump was more cautious, declaring there was “no deal until there’s a deal,” shifting responsibility to Ukraine and Europe. By doing so, he left Kyiv to either validate or reject his brand of diplomacy.</p>.<p>The joint press conference was brief and opaque. Neither leader offered details nor answered questions. Trump stressed “great progress,” while Putin painted the discussions as a breakthrough. Yet, observers saw little more than political optics. Trump’s campaign even capitalised on the summit with fundraising appeals portraying him as the indispensable peacemaker.</p>.<p>Beyond Ukraine, Trump leaned on his familiar theme of personal diplomacy. He claimed Chinese President Xi Jinping had privately assured him that Beijing would not invade Taiwan during his presidency – a statement that drew skepticism but little pushback.</p>.<p>For India, the Alaska summit carried particular significance. Trump has long criticised India’s continued imports of Russian oil, portraying them as weakening Western sanctions. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent even warned that if no progress emerged from Alaska, Washington could escalate “secondary tariffs” on India, already facing a punitive 25% penalty on top of existing tariffs. The message was blunt: if Russia would not bend, India would be squeezed.</p>.<p>The irony was stark. India, importing nearly two million barrels per day from Russia, faced the threat of penalties, while China, the largest buyer of Russian crude, escaped similar treatment. Trump even suggested post-summit that tariffs on China were unnecessary “for now,” highlighting a double standard not lost on New Delhi. Adding to the confusion, Trump publicly claimed that India had agreed to halt Russian oil imports, a statement completely at odds with reality. Whether misinformed, misrepresenting facts, or deliberately using India as a bargaining chip, Trump’s rhetoric underscored the precariousness of India’s position.</p>.<p><strong>India in the mix</strong></p>.<p>For Indian policymakers, the stakes are immense. Should secondary tariffs proceed, India would confront an effective 50% tariff burden on its exports to the US – a blow to agriculture, textiles, and manufacturing. If Trump holds back, India may preserve room for trade talks, perhaps even negotiations towards a bilateral agreement. Yet, the larger lesson is clear: Trump treats tariffs as instruments of diplomacy, using economic leverage to extract concessions or claim victories.</p>.<p>The summit gave Trump another chance to promote his peacemaker narrative in South Asia. He claimed, again, credit for mediating the ceasefire between India and Pakistan after the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor, and argued his intervention prevented a nuclear conflict.</p>.<p>Ultimately, the Alaska summit was more spectacle than substance. For Ukraine, the war continues with no ceasefire in sight. For Russia, the optics provided a propaganda boost, allowing Putin to present himself as an equal partner in dialogue. For Trump, the meeting reinforced his style of personalised diplomacy – grand gestures, bold claims, and self-promotion – even when tangible results are missing. For India, it highlighted the risks of being collateral damage in great-power bargaining, with its energy and trade interests vulnerable to Trump’s unpredictable tariff threats.</p>.<p>The summit ended with Putin inviting Trump to Moscow, which Trump said he might accept. This indicates Trump values maintaining a personal channel with Putin regardless of outcomes. Yet, symbolism, warmth, and handshakes are no substitute for agreements on matters as consequential as war and peace.</p>.<p>In the final analysis, Alaska showcased Trump’s approach: wielding trade as leverage, projecting himself as a global deal-maker, and privileging personal ties with fellow strongmen. But it also exposed contradictions, particularly towards India, where threats of punitive tariffs clash with the rhetoric of partnership. For New Delhi, the takeaway is sobering: while it may welcome a reprieve from US pressure, it cannot rely on Trump’s consistency. Safeguarding its national interests – in energy, trade, and regional stability – requires strategic independence and resilience, not deference to the shifting winds of American politics.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is an associate fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses)</em></p>
<p>The summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska was billed as a turning point that could influence the Russia-Ukraine war, reset US-Russia ties, and reshape global trade politics. Yet, the meeting, rich in symbolism and optics, produced little substance. No agreement emerged on Ukraine, and the world was left with ambiguity, competing narratives, and political theatre.</p>.<p>The opening was steeped in ceremony – smiles, handshakes, a ride in Trump’s limousine, and military flyovers signaling warmth rarely afforded to a Russian leader on US soil. Both leaders described the talks as “direct” and “sincere.” Putin suggested that an “understanding” had been reached and urged Europe and Kyiv not to block progress. Trump was more cautious, declaring there was “no deal until there’s a deal,” shifting responsibility to Ukraine and Europe. By doing so, he left Kyiv to either validate or reject his brand of diplomacy.</p>.<p>The joint press conference was brief and opaque. Neither leader offered details nor answered questions. Trump stressed “great progress,” while Putin painted the discussions as a breakthrough. Yet, observers saw little more than political optics. Trump’s campaign even capitalised on the summit with fundraising appeals portraying him as the indispensable peacemaker.</p>.<p>Beyond Ukraine, Trump leaned on his familiar theme of personal diplomacy. He claimed Chinese President Xi Jinping had privately assured him that Beijing would not invade Taiwan during his presidency – a statement that drew skepticism but little pushback.</p>.<p>For India, the Alaska summit carried particular significance. Trump has long criticised India’s continued imports of Russian oil, portraying them as weakening Western sanctions. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent even warned that if no progress emerged from Alaska, Washington could escalate “secondary tariffs” on India, already facing a punitive 25% penalty on top of existing tariffs. The message was blunt: if Russia would not bend, India would be squeezed.</p>.<p>The irony was stark. India, importing nearly two million barrels per day from Russia, faced the threat of penalties, while China, the largest buyer of Russian crude, escaped similar treatment. Trump even suggested post-summit that tariffs on China were unnecessary “for now,” highlighting a double standard not lost on New Delhi. Adding to the confusion, Trump publicly claimed that India had agreed to halt Russian oil imports, a statement completely at odds with reality. Whether misinformed, misrepresenting facts, or deliberately using India as a bargaining chip, Trump’s rhetoric underscored the precariousness of India’s position.</p>.<p><strong>India in the mix</strong></p>.<p>For Indian policymakers, the stakes are immense. Should secondary tariffs proceed, India would confront an effective 50% tariff burden on its exports to the US – a blow to agriculture, textiles, and manufacturing. If Trump holds back, India may preserve room for trade talks, perhaps even negotiations towards a bilateral agreement. Yet, the larger lesson is clear: Trump treats tariffs as instruments of diplomacy, using economic leverage to extract concessions or claim victories.</p>.<p>The summit gave Trump another chance to promote his peacemaker narrative in South Asia. He claimed, again, credit for mediating the ceasefire between India and Pakistan after the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor, and argued his intervention prevented a nuclear conflict.</p>.<p>Ultimately, the Alaska summit was more spectacle than substance. For Ukraine, the war continues with no ceasefire in sight. For Russia, the optics provided a propaganda boost, allowing Putin to present himself as an equal partner in dialogue. For Trump, the meeting reinforced his style of personalised diplomacy – grand gestures, bold claims, and self-promotion – even when tangible results are missing. For India, it highlighted the risks of being collateral damage in great-power bargaining, with its energy and trade interests vulnerable to Trump’s unpredictable tariff threats.</p>.<p>The summit ended with Putin inviting Trump to Moscow, which Trump said he might accept. This indicates Trump values maintaining a personal channel with Putin regardless of outcomes. Yet, symbolism, warmth, and handshakes are no substitute for agreements on matters as consequential as war and peace.</p>.<p>In the final analysis, Alaska showcased Trump’s approach: wielding trade as leverage, projecting himself as a global deal-maker, and privileging personal ties with fellow strongmen. But it also exposed contradictions, particularly towards India, where threats of punitive tariffs clash with the rhetoric of partnership. For New Delhi, the takeaway is sobering: while it may welcome a reprieve from US pressure, it cannot rely on Trump’s consistency. Safeguarding its national interests – in energy, trade, and regional stability – requires strategic independence and resilience, not deference to the shifting winds of American politics.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is an associate fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses)</em></p>
