Former President Donald Trump is facing criticism for delivering a significant diplomatic advantage to Russian President Vladimir Putin before the two even met in Alaska. Analysts and former officials say the decision to grant Putin a high-profile meeting, without securing any tangible concessions, has already undermined U.S. leverage in dealings with Moscow.
The bilateral meeting near Anchorage, set for Friday, was initially expected to center on pressing issues such as Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine. Yet experts note that the very act of welcoming Putin to American soil marks a major political victory for the Kremlin, reversing years of diplomatic isolation.
John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, told a national television audience earlier this week that Putin had “already won” before the summit began. The comment drew a sharp rebuke from Trump, who insisted his administration was “winning on everything.”
In a social media post, he dismissed the concerns while mistakenly referring to St. Petersburg by its Soviet-era name, Leningrad, a detail critics say underscores a lack of awareness about modern Russia.
U.S. officials and media outlets have pointed out that the Alaska meeting grants Putin exactly what he has sought: international legitimacy and a public platform alongside a U.S. president. A pro-Kremlin television commentator in Russia described the visit as the “total collapse” of efforts to isolate Moscow, while a Russian political analyst called it a “breakthrough,” regardless of whether substantive agreements are reached.
Trump had previously warned that Russia would face new economic sanctions if it did not agree to end the war in Ukraine by August 8.
The ultimatum echoed past threats made by his administration, which similarly went unenforced. When Putin ignored the deadline, Trump instead extended an invitation for an in-person meeting, a reversal observers say hands Moscow a clear diplomatic win.
The White House had also suggested earlier that any meeting between Trump and Putin would be contingent on a prior session between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. That condition, like the sanctions threats, was quietly abandoned. The result, experts argue, is a summit that rewards Russia without extracting any commitments in return.
This move follows a series of policy decisions over recent months that analysts believe have benefited Moscow. Among them: the halting of U.S. cyber and information operations targeting Russian interference, the dismantling of interagency efforts to counter Russian sabotage, and support for Russian grain and fertilizer sales on global markets.
In other actions seen as favoring Russia, Trump criticized Zelenskyy in the Oval Office using Kremlin-aligned talking points, blamed Ukraine for a war initiated by Moscow, and portrayed Putin as a victim of the 2016 election interference scandal.
He also advocated for Russia’s reinstatement into the G7, disbanded the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force, and scaled back enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
Further steps included dismantling a Justice Department program focused on sanction enforcement against Russian oligarchs, cutting U.S. foreign aid programs, and removing intelligence and diplomatic officials after apparent Russian objections to their appointments. The U.S. even sided with Russia in a United Nations vote condemning its own aggression against Ukraine.
Critics argue that these cumulative moves have weakened U.S. standing while emboldening Moscow. By granting Putin the face-to-face meeting without securing prior concessions, they say Trump has handed the Russian leader a symbolic but powerful victory, one that strengthens his international image and undermines the West’s unified stance against Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
For Putin, the optics alone may be enough. Appearing alongside an American president, after years of being treated as an international outcast, reinforces his image at home and signals to the world that Russia’s pariah status is fading.
For the United States, the question remains whether the meeting will produce any progress on the war or other disputes, or whether it will stand as another example of Washington giving Moscow more than it gets in return.