Is the Alaska summit’s disgrace a turning point for human history? (Chu Tuấn Anh)

Amicable gesturing and comradeship between Donald Trump and Putin

The European nations must not cower down to the demands of Donald Trump and Putin for territorial concessions. It is not a matter of pride or humiliation, but a fundamental argument for our human future to support Ukraine in fighting this war to the end.

On August 15, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin wrapped up the meeting in Alaska without a clear statement of mutual agreements, as reported by international media. These personal exchanges between the two strongmen were largely a non-event, as Donald Trump would have no authority to determine a European matter, and any dialogue on Ukraine must have Ukraine as an active participant. We, nonetheless, should be appalled by the level of blatancy and grossness that came into play. Landing in Alaska from his private jet, Putin strolled through a long distance into the red carpet, where Donald Trump was waiting patiently to offer handshakes.

Featuring himself on a dark blue banner with the slogan ‘pursuing peace’, it is purely grotesque to see war criminal purporting to be a peace lover. Putin even took opportunities to talk about cooperation and development opportunities with the United States. Forgotten was an image of a man isolated and boycotted by the international community just a year ago. Trump has given Putin what he wanted at this dire time amid the War, a dose of ‘international recognition’ and legitimacy to pander to his increasingly anxious domestic audience. Undoubtedly, these images will forever spin down history as one of the greatest taints of the United States and Western democracies.

In his closing remark, Donald Trump claimed that many points had been agreed on, but what were they? Reported by Reuters, Trump told Ukrainian President Zelenskiy after the summit that Kyiv had to cede the current Russian-occupied territory plus all of Donetsk, pertaining to the condition offered by Putin for ceasefires. And that wouldn’t be possibly accepted by Zelenskiy, as a fifth of Ukraine, including three-quarters of Donetsk, has been under Russian control since they began their invasion of Ukraine in 2014 ¹. How would a national leader could grit his teeth to sign up to these scornful demands

Putin’s claims would never be accepted by Ukraine and European countries, but there is more to it. It suggests a dark vision subscribed to by a US president that a small nation-state should succumb to the dictates of imperial powers on whatever terms and conditions. And in Mr. President’s worldview, smaller nation-states have no card to play, even international laws mean little to nothing.

When Donald Trump announced his tariff war on the World in April, our politicians chose to subscribe to any trade deal that Donald Trump wanted. This approach was described as sensible to avoid head-on conflicts with the World’s greatest trade power. This time around, we must not allow him to get his way for a good reason.

When Putin declared war on Ukraine, Russia blatantly violated the prohibition on the use of force specified in Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter, undoubtedly ². As one might argue that international laws and norms have been rendered toothless for years for lacking enforcement, however, ignoring international laws would be purely devastating for our World. To be specific, it will set a precedent for authoritarian states in the World to act without being held accountable for their aggressions. Our global institutional peace has been forever lost once we gave up on it. To call for a ceasefire between the two countries, Russia must pull out of Ukraine and offer compensation for its war atrocities. We, the international community, must not back out of this position.

Putin, in his closing remarks, cited the need for understanding the root cause and historical context of the matters. This view was sadly shared by well-known Western scholars, such as John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs, who believed that the West should be blamed for the Russo-Ukrainian war. Such beliefs (referred to as offensive realism) are completely fallacious by fanning the idea that great powers are entitled to maintain their sphere of influence and regional hegemony, and the lack of respect for Russian hegemony is finally a war ³. Ukraine, as an independent state, has a natural right to choose its own political paradigm and international relations, which serve its national interests and guarantee universal human rights. This right is sacrosanct, and legal under international laws’ jurisdictions, and must not be trampled by any kind of erroneous geopolitical theories.

Hence, Ukrainian choices for alliances and partnerships align with Ukrainian compatibility with their allies’ political models and shared values. This should not be yielded to the minds of great powers, no matter who they are. Ukraine’s move towards the European Union and the West is not an arbitrary choice of a few elites, as it reflects a growing dynamic of popular support from Ukrainian voters who selected their leaders through free and fair elections. Jeffrey Sachs’s offensive realism is plainly ridiculous, and it narrows down politics into an exercise by a few strongmen and big powers, while unheeding of the participatory rights and self-determination of our global citizens, whether from big or small countries.

Furthermore, the only valid reason for the Russian invasion of Ukraine to be blamed on the West is their naivety about the nature of modern authoritarianism. Make no mistake that our politicians did not know who Putin was. He was long-time scrutinised by human rights groups for egregious human rights abuses and terror against the Russian people. Nonetheless, the West has clung to a view that if Putin’s domestic violence could be contained within Russian territory, and if this violence did not transcend borders, it would be alright. When his terror grew wild and became contagious beyond Russian territory, with invasions of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014, their view was slightly calibrated to fit into realpolitik as if it would still be fine as long as Russian violence was contained in former Soviet states and did not make its way to liberal ‘European territory’.

In such a world of neoliberalism, economic integration and friendships were extended to foreign states based on geopolitical strategic significance and global flows of cash and labour, and not so much on the performance of human rights and democracy. Indeed, the West hangs on to an absurd belief that economic opportunities, including the large purchases of Russian oil and gas, would be able to tame Putin’s Russia, or at least anaesthetise Russian imperial impulses. This worked out inversely from what it was intended to be, unfortunately. Angela Merkel’s Germany became addicted to Russian gas and surrendered much of the European largest economy’s energy sovereignty to the hands of the Russian oligarchy. To this end, Russia became emboldened to act aggressively rather than being bridled by our gullible Western friends.

Indeed, it is about time to hold in contempt domestic violence caused by authoritarian states as an act of war against humankind rather than just a piece of human rights records. That domestic terror has not yet transcended the borders does not mean it won’t be. Lo and behold, human rights violations today are a war waiting to be declared tomorrow.

And the root cause of the matter is that the World’s politicians have been curled up in the comforts of “limited peace”, whilst human rights atrocities are committed by authoritarian actors every day in broad daylight. First, there has been a complacency in the Western World that peace has been gained in a large share of global territories; little do they realise that the prospect of war might return one day if we fail to end all the wars and human rights violations anytime soon. Secondly, peace is often only read as the absence of war among states, but it does not deal with another dynamic of domestic violence existing within the nation-states. After the era of civil wars and genocides committed by the authoritarian forces on their own compatriots, political violence has not ceased yet; it was slowly transformed into various forms of human rights abuses. Unfortunately, human rights abuses are often normalised by the Western World as typical issues of less developed nations.

Worse, one-sided economic opening up or liberalisation has been encouraged by Western countries without anchoring to commitments about human rights and democratisation. With that in mind, this attitude must be scrapped for humanity’s sake.

European nations should continue throwing support behind Ukraine, no matter what cards Donald Trump and Putin have to play along. Appeasement doesn’t work, as it is not merely a matter of pride or humiliation; there is a fundamental argument to make for the guarantees of our future peace and prosperity by firmly upholding international laws as a matter of principle.

The consequences of letting international laws be flouted are the days down the road awaited by utter displays of widespread chaos and lawlessness that undo the decades of building up institutional peace and cooperation. In addition, the Russian invasion needs to serve as a precedent to encourage our democratic politicians to move away from realistic political thinking, which is hell bent on balancing between great powers and vaguely defined state interests. The Alaska summit’s disgrace caused by Donald Trump is a turning point for us to decide which global order to take shape in the decades to come. If we don’t allow universal human rights and democracy to transcend borders by supporting global democracy movements and making commitments to end domestic terror, we might end up having authoritarianism and its violence spreading across the world.

Chu Tuấn Anh

(18/08/2025)

References:

1. Trump tells Zelensky that Putin wants more of Ukraine, urges Kyiv make a deal ↩︎
2. How Russia’s invasion of Ukraine tested the international legal order ↩︎
3. Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault ↩︎