The Donald Trump-Vladimir Putin meeting in Anchorage promised forward movement on Ukraine, but delivered only limited outcomes. The good news is there was no breakdown—no deal, but no bitterness either. That in itself is a positive. President Trump mentioned that agreement had been reached on several issues, with only “one or two” matters proving sticky. It does not take much imagination to conclude that the unresolved points revolve around Russia’s insistence on holding Donbas and the status of Crimea.
A ceasefire could have been announced as an interim measure while details of a wider settlement were worked out later. That this did not happen suggests disagreement was serious enough—perhaps Putin himself insisted that the war continue until his core demands were addressed.
Trump’s own words were guarded: “There is no deal without a deal”. Yet his body language in Anchorage was not negative, nor was Putin’s. If a deal eventually emerges, Trump is likely to double down on another arena of conflict: Gaza. Bringing about a ceasefire there, alongside progress in Ukraine, would strengthen his credentials for international recognition, perhaps even a Nobel Prize. His effort to bring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the White House on Monday, for follow-up discussions does suggest Anchorage was not the end of diplomacy but only a pause.
The immediate result, however, is that the fighting continues. Ukrainian forces remain dug in along defensive lines that have scarcely shifted since late 2024, while Russian forces probe with their greater manpower and industrially-backed munitions. The war has long since settled into a grinding stalemate; with no concessions in the offing. Putin preserved his strategic flexibility, reassured his military and burnished his domestic standing. The mere fact of his appearance in Anchorage, meeting an American president as an equal, was itself a symbolic victory. It reinforced Moscow’s narrative that sanctions have not diminished Russia’s global relevance.
For Ukraine, Anchorage was at best a holding action. It gained no ceasefire, no pause and no relief from daily bombardment. Zelenskyy was conspicuous by his absence from the table, and that itself fed unease in Kyiv. His subsequent invitation to Washington is a welcome corrective, but it highlights that Ukraine’s place in these discussions remains fragile. For Moscow, the optics of parity with the US were invaluable. Putin’s strategy is unlikely to change; no outright conquest, but steady escalation—incremental territorial pushes, missile and drone strikes on infrastructure and psychological pressure on both Ukraine’s morale and Western patience.
Europe, for its part, faces deepening dilemmas. Its leaders watched the Anchorage choreography with unease. For them, the base issue has always been the Russian threat to Europe itself. Nato’s eastward march was meant as a bulwark; Ukraine became the flashpoint, “a nation too far”. Now Europe must ask itself: can it accept Ukraine outside Nato but still afford it the benefits of an informal security partnership? Can it contemplate creative, if uncomfortable, compromises—shared or UN-supervised arrangements in Crimea, partial de-militarised zones, or hybrid security guarantees? These are not easy questions, but black-and-white positions will not end this war. Shades of grey must form the eventual solution.
Anchorage also underlined why peace is elusive. Russia insists on keeping occupied territory, while Ukraine regards any loss of sovereignty as existential. Nato and EU aspirations remain Ukraine’s goal, but for Russia, these are red lines. The talks produced vague assurances; that absence of clarity weakens confidence in any “progress”. A trilateral summit in Moscow with Trump, Putin and Zelenskyy looks improbable unless Kyiv shows more flexibility and Europe directly involves itself. The European leaders cannot remain spectators; their security is at stake, and their willingness to bend may shape the outcome more than Zelenskyy’s rhetoric.
For now, Putin has invited Trump to Moscow. The Kremlin is content to prolong the diplomatic domain. But unless Ukraine sits at the table and the core disputes are addressed, these summits risk being cycles of photo-ops that buy Russia time to consolidate its military and political gains.
What does this mean for India? New Delhi watches closely, because the consequences are not only strategic but economic. The Trump administration has already warned of punitive tariffs of up to 500 percent on nations accused of sustaining Russia’s war effort by buying its oil and keeping its economy afloat. India has been warned of possible additional 25 percent tariffs (total 50 percent) on oil purchases from Russia, though there is speculation this may be more of a psychological lever than an imminent policy. Even so, Delhi cannot ignore the risk. Decisions in Washington and Moscow could directly affect India’s growth trajectory.
The message for India’s policymakers is clear: wait, watch and practice restraint. National interest must remain paramount, and media commentary or academic debate should avoid gratuitous criticism or personal slurs. Strategic choices must be left to quiet diplomacy. It is not only oil at stake, but also technology and defence supplies. India’s praise of the Russian S-400 system as a force multiplier is the stark truth. Yet, one must ask if such stark declarations are prudent at this sensitive moment. Global decision-making is finely balanced, and nations like India that straddle multiple strategic relationships must remain circumspect. Quiet diplomacy is not weakness; it is a necessity when every word can echo with consequences.
In the end, Anchorage was not a breakdown. That in itself is a modest gain. But it was no breakthrough either. The war continues, with Russia emboldened, Ukraine anxious and Europe restless. The US remains an indispensable player. For India, the task is to steer carefully, avoiding unnecessary exposure while keeping doors open in Washington, Moscow, and Brussels alike. Anchorage was another reminder that the Ukraine war is not a regional struggle but a global one, with ripples reaching Delhi’s economy and strategic posture. The road to peace will be long, uneven and shaded in grey—and in that landscape, silence and patience may serve India better than pronouncements.
Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain (retd) | Former Commander, Srinagar-based 15 Corps; Chancellor, Central University of Kashmir
(Views are personal)
(atahasnain@gmail.com)