The media wasted no time branding the Alaska summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin a “failure.” Why? Because there wasn’t a signed peace deal on the spot. That’s the kind of shallow analysis we’ve come to expect — headlines crafted for outrage clicks rather than serious thought. But let’s be honest: two and a half hours of talks between the U.S. and Russia on Ukraine, trade, and global security is not failure. It’s diplomacy. And diplomacy is measured in outcomes, not soundbites.
History offers plenty of proof. FDR met with Stalin, Nixon with Mao, Reagan with Gorbachev. None of these men were “good guys.” Some were dictators, some war criminals. But those meetings changed the trajectory of history because the alternative — endless hostility — costs more lives, more money, and more instability. Talking with your adversary doesn’t mean you approve of them. It means you’re serious about preventing further bloodshed.
Putin himself admitted in Alaska what many critics refuse to acknowledge: if Trump had been president in 2022, the war in Ukraine would likely never have happened. That’s not Trump’s boast — that’s Putin’s own statement. The deterrence worked. The war escalated under Biden, not Trump. That’s a fact.
The media wants quick optics: a treaty signed, flags waving, problem solved. That’s not how conflict resolution works. Peace talks are a process. Reagan didn’t walk out of his first summit with Gorbachev holding the INF Treaty. But without those initial talks, the Cold War might never have ended.
Trump and Putin sat down for 2 hours and 30 minutes. They discussed Ukraine, NATO, economic cooperation, and even the Arctic. Trump pledged to brief Zelensky and NATO — meaning this wasn’t some backroom deal, but an attempt to bring stakeholders closer to an outcome. Even incremental progress saves lives. Thousands die each week in Ukraine. Every step toward dialogue means fewer coffins, fewer broken families, fewer wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.
Let’s also deal with the hypocrisy. When Obama sat with Raul Castro in Cuba, the press called it a bold move for diplomacy. When Trump sits with Putin, the same media screams betrayal. You can’t have it both ways. Either diplomacy is worth pursuing no matter who is president, or we admit that these attacks are less about peace and more about politics.
So the real question isn’t whether Trump “should” meet with Putin. The question is: do you prefer endless war, or do you prefer a shot at peace? Outcomes are what matter. If negotiations slow the killing, if they open trade, if they stabilize relations, that’s progress — even if it doesn’t fit the media’s instant-gratification storyline.
Calling the Alaska summit a “failure” says more about the critics than about the talks themselves. Failure is letting wars drag on with no effort to stop them. Failure is choosing political purity over human lives. Diplomacy, no matter how messy or incomplete, is the only path that has ever led to peace.
And on that front, Alaska was not failure. It was a beginning.
