What Now?
After Alaska...
Over a week has passed since the talks between Presidents Trump and Putin in Alaska and the promised (or assumed) next steps have not materialized. Neither “bilat” or “trilat” looms on the horizon. Instead, both sides seem, despite the fulsome rhetoric issued by all parties (Ukraine, Russia, the US, NATO, the EU) during and after Alaska, to be back to where they started.
No one has any right to be surprised: Zelensky cannot, on pain of death and/or coup, cede the remainder of Donetsk to Russia. Russia cannot and will not accept European and/or American “peacekeepers” in Ukraine, nor will they cede territory they have annexed since 2014. Russia will also not accept a ceasefire as a condition for further negotations. Does this mean that the Alaska talks were without purpose? No.
It is a mistake to view US-Russian relations solely through the prism of Ukraine. The US and Russia have significant work to be done, most notably in agreeing to an extension of the New START Treaty, which is due to expire in February 2026. Of perhaps even greater importance is the looming arms race in Europe.
The US and the newly and worrisomely militaristic German government under Frederich Merz is set to deploy medium-range missiles on German territory beginning in 2026. For their part, Russia is expected to deploy its long-range Oreshnik missiles in Belarus by the end of the year. Adding fuel to the fire, Pete Hegseth’s Pentagon has announced that it will be sending 3,350 Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) air-launched missiles to Ukraine within weeks.
Not helping matters is that the hysteria that has marked the Democratic Party’s attitude toward all-things-Russia since 2016 remains a very potent force in our politics. But normal diplomatic engagement with Russia must be resumed not least because of the looming arms race in Europe—and normalization can and must proceed even in the absence of peace in Ukraine.
James W. Carden is editor of TRR.
"...and normalization can and must proceed even in the absence of peace in Ukraine."
So true indeed and shocking that the abdication of sanity in high places has made to necessary to shout it from the roof tops. One would think it self evident that the most important strategic objective in the foreign policy of a nuclear power, any nuclear power, is to conduct policy with other nuclear powers with a view to insuring that nuclear war among them never happens. Such requires at minimum correct relations, if cordial is unattainable.
Sadly, when one casts a cold eye on how our FP establishment, and both political parties as a matter of doctrine, have comported themselves towards Russia since 2014 and before, it leaves one scratching his head: Russiagate nonsense, election interference nonsense, mass expulsion of diplomats over non existing election interference, seizure of diplomatic establishments, Biden erecting his Wall of Seperation, Ukraine - sheer madness by any standard short of a declaration of war, which it comes close to being. And where did all this leave us? Who owns responsibility for this fiasco?
Check out the Sunday funnies at Meet the Press:
The Great Gray Russian Bear
The Voice of History
vs
An NBC Empty Pink Suit
With Nothing But
A Script in Her Hands
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/russia-s-lavrov-says-putin-wants-peace-even-as-strikes-on-ukraine-ramp-up-full-interview-245660741587