Alaska Summit: All of a Sudden, Nothing Happened!

Really, that was it? A summit billed as epoch-defining, a geopolitical moment poised to redraw global alliances – and what did we get? Two grey-haired sociopaths posing in Alaska, exchanging pleasantries, and then calling it a day.

In the lead-up to the Anchorage meeting, Western media orchestrated a crescendo worthy of a Cold War film marathon. Analysts on cable news drew speculative maps of a post-summit world: would Trump hint at rolling back NATO? Would Putin win recognition for his territorial grabs in Ukraine? Would Alaska actually be pipelined into the Kremlin’s sporting federation? Every outlet seemed primed for theatrical chaos.

Yet, when the summit finally arrived, our imaginations misfired. We were left with cravats, canned niceties, and vapid affirmations. Trump talked about “ending the war in Ukraine” without a plan; Putin said nothing about war except to remind us that NATO was oppressing poor little Russia. The Russian brigade of frowns was out of full force; Trump smirked more than he threatened. It was oddly soothing.

Consider what the Western press labeled “downtime” in coverage: Pundits chewing over whether Trump blinked first. Some parsed the glint in Putin’s eye as a victory lap. Others theorised conspiratorially about a private trade, “Did Trump sell gas rights through a backroom deal?” Nope. All we got was empty suits, empty pledges, and absolutely nothing changed.

Meanwhile, Ukraine gets nowhere in the narrative. No meaningful assurances. No “defend the Ukrainian border” moment. Western media retreated into logorrhoea about “body language” and “optics.” The war in Europe? Knocked off the front page (or shoved into a sidebar).

Then there was the “historic handshake,” greeted as if we’d just sighted Bigfoot. Surely, nothing says gravitas like leaders smiling for cameras under the Alaskan midnight sun before jetting off to their respective echo chambers. We were sold a spectacle, then reminded: there’s no there there.

Of course, that’s not to say diplomacy should always deliver fireworks. Sometimes keeping the peace is enough. But between Trump’s bravado-laced threats and Putin’s chilly detachment, there was substance here—if only someone had been paying attention. Instead, we got sound bites. Peace? Not so much.

Take the moment Trump declared, “It’s possible this meeting leads to ending the war.” Without context—without a shred of policy substance—those words float like vapor. You may as well promise peace in the Bahamas, with zero follow-up. It was less a diplomatic pivot and more a talking-point bait toss, hashed over by frustrated editors mumbling, “Is that it?”

This is diplomacy 2025: aggrandised bluster broadcast from soundstages. Countries don’t change posture. Global strategy doesn’t adjust. Instead, we trade talking points in a self-referential loop: “What did it mean when he smiled?” “What was Putin signalling by not shaking hands?” And there’s the rub: press coverage has become the event. The actual summit is just the footnote.

Yet a glaring hypocrisy persists: when European leaders meet, they are panned as technocrats, detached elites unintelligible to ordinary voters. When Trump and Putin meet, it’s heralded as a political spectacle, no matter how superficial. The spectacle overrides substance. And with good reason: substance requires accountability. And once you’ve portrayed the handshake as a geopolitical bombshell, you can’t admit it meant nothing without admitting you oversold it.

The danger, then, isn’t that nothing happened, wars won’t start the moment after. The real peril is that our media, and by extension our politics, rewards grandstanding over governance. That one-liners crowd out policy. That tomorrow’s front pages retreat into body language and sartorial notes instead of accountability and analysis.

There are real consequences here. The West is becoming increasingly fractured, diplomats flailed, and Ukraine—both the real war and the ideal of European sovereignty—slipped back into the shadows. Democracy? Confidence in institutions nosedived. Hobbling Ukraine’s confidence by refusing to articulate unequivocal support while celebrating banal formality is both political malpractice and moral failure.

Anchorage, in effect, was a diversion. For Putin, it underscored his roulette-like approach: no direct concessions, no denials, just ornamental meet-and-greet. Trump walked away with a sound bite—“We’ll see what happens.” Tweetable, sure. Palatable to his base. Yet less than useless.

As European editors now coffee their way into more headlines, they may well ask: “Did we learn anything?” The answer, by extension, is yes, brevity sells, spectacle sells, but substance doesn’t. Diplomacy demands faith in process. But trust was traded for pith. And that sells even less.

So here we are: two leaders, no peace treaty, no deal, no crisis diverted, no breakthrough announced—just cameras turning, flack statements filed, and another summit done. “All of a sudden, nothing happened.” And those words don’t just describe the summit; they encapsulate the state of modern reportage and political theatre. If nothing else, let’s at least hope next time, “nothing happened” isn’t enough.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________