A version of this story appeared in the daily Threat Status newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive Threat Status delivered directly to your inbox each weekday.
OPINION:
President Trump’s new stance on his forthcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska regarding the war in Ukraine is a deliberate shift away from negotiation. Mr. Trump’s press team is framing the meeting as a strategic listening exercise: an opportunity for the president to gauge Mr. Putin’s willingness to talk about peace.
On Monday, Mr. Trump told reporters, “This is really a feel-out meeting.” He predicted that he would know “probably in the first two minutes” whether a peace deal would be possible.
Accordingly, Mr. Trump should start the meeting with Mr. Putin by declaring that he will not discuss “root causes” of the war. Mr. Putin’s depiction of root causes is based on a fabricated historical narrative that Ukraine belongs to Russia and that American and European efforts to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty pose an existential threat.
This declaration will signal that Mr. Trump will not tolerate Mr. Putin “tapping him along.” Mr. Putin has insisted on addressing root causes to delay meaningful negotiations by making implausible demands on Ukraine while escalating military attacks. Mr. Trump’s purpose in meeting Mr. Putin is to discuss the future, not the past. He seeks to chart a diplomatic course toward a ceasefire, an end to the war, and sustainable peace.
As part of this tone-setting, Mr. Trump can also demonstrate his psychological grasp of the former KGB agent’s motivations. Mr. Putin’s obsession with history and the root causes of the war is a weakness. Since the Russian military failed to take Kyiv quickly after its full-scale invasion in February 2022, it has been defeated repeatedly on the battlefield and has sustained more than 1 million casualties. In search of new ways to justify to Russian citizens their sacrifices for the war effort after three years, Mr. Putin now portrays Russia in an unavoidable yet permanent state of conflict with the West. Mr. Putin calls this a “civilizational” struggle, which Russia must win for the sake of the mother country and humankind.
The myth of perpetual civilizational conflict serves domestic propaganda aims and emboldens radical rhetoric among Russian politicians and ideologues regarding the use of nuclear weapons. Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian president and deputy chairman of the Security Council, has repeatedly threatened the West with nuclear escalation, warning of a “doomsday” scenario if Russia’s aims in Ukraine are thwarted. He has argued that the survival of the Russian state trumps all other considerations and that first use of nuclear weapons remains on the table if Russia perceives an “existential threat,” a threshold conveniently defined by the Kremlin’s shifting narrative.
Mr. Trump has already warned Mr. Medvedev to “watch his words.” At the outset of the Alaska meeting, Mr. Trump should call upon Mr. Putin to stop his officials and propagandists from using nuclear brinkmanship.
In Alaska, Mr. Trump is poised to seize the psychological high ground. By refusing to allow Mr. Putin to shift blame onto Ukraine, America, or other Western nations, Mr. Trump can signal that he sees the systemic internal sources of Russia’s instability: weak governance, failure to modernize the economy and eroding public confidence in leadership. These issues, embedded in the fabric of Mr. Putin’s tenure long before the current war, have intensified under the strain of ongoing conflict. By making these realities explicit and denying Mr. Putin the comfort of external scapegoats, Mr. Trump can undermine the Kremlin’s narrative and assert a position of strength in any negotiation, compelling Mr. Putin to confront the true roots of his predicament.
Further, Mr. Trump can make clear that he has the capacity to impose sanctions on Russia in ways that would be devastating to its economy, leveraging America’s position to inflict significant financial pressure if necessary. Making this strength visible deters adversarial maneuvering and enhances the credibility of diplomatic engagements. Such clarity would send a powerful message to Moscow that the U.S. and Europe are not only militarily formidable but also economically unassailable, thereby shaping negotiations and strategic calculations in favor of the United States, Europe and Ukraine.
Mr. Trump knows Mr. Putin well enough that he can talk to him directly and honestly in terms that he understands. In short, Russia’s expanded invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was a war of choice. This is Mr. Putin’s war.
At the outset of the meeting, he should tell Mr. Putin: I am here to listen, but not to a histrionic lecture about the root causes of the war. To make his point, Mr. Trump can tell him, “I would rather have a root canal than discuss root causes.”
If Mr. Putin persists with the lecture, Mr. Trump will know “in two minutes” that no deal is on the table. If Mr. Trump’s parameters for discussion are understood, he could have a constructive meeting with Mr. Putin about when and how to begin real negotiations.
• Matthew H. Murray is an adjunct professor of public and international affairs at the Harriman Institute, Columbia University (New York). He served as deputy assistant secretary of commerce for Europe, the Middle East and Africa at the Commerce Department under the Obama administration.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.