‘Scepticism’, ‘uncertainty’, ‘unfeasible’ and many such terms loomed over the scheduled Alaska talks, given the complexities of the Ukraine imbroglio and the spiralling down of bilateral relations between Russia and the US. The successful conduct of the Alaska talks held in the city of Anchorage on 15 August 2025, however, put to rest such discourse. President Vladimir Putin was extended a warm red-carpet welcome, signalling a positive note to the beginning of the summit talks. Hankering for the necessary steps to realise a real and lasting peace in the long-standing conflict, the two leaders termed the outcome satisfying. Without divulging many details of the talks behind closed doors on Ukraine’s future, President Trump stated that the meeting was ‘extremely productive’. At the same time, President Putin opined that they had come to ‘an understanding’ on the current Ukraine situation.
Though the summit talks may not have yielded the ‘expected outcome’, the optics of the meeting are unassumingly a calculated diplomatic maneuver. In other words, the Alaska talks – a ‘Black Swan’ event largely reflected diplomatic maturity and forward thinking between the US and Russia. The international community is widely welcoming the warmth and positive vibes between the two leaders. Strategic analysts even predicted that a constructive outcome of the talks could also snowball to a ‘reset 3.0’ between the two countries under the Trump administration. This also meant benefiting not only the US-Russia engagement but also the global community at large.
The heightened focus of the US on ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA) – a slogan that has visibly been the ‘Trump card’ used by the President since taking over the Oval Office. The Trump administration has therefore introduced action plans in its foreign policy that focus on shaping the US’s golden age era. Brokering peace and negotiations between two hostile countries has been one of Trump’s self-initiated foreign policy ingenuities. There are seemingly successful stories of such efforts as seen with the signing of an agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan on 08 August 2025, which was a significant step toward advancing stability, peace, and prosperity in the Caucasus region, furthering confidence in Trump’s initiatives.
Finding a long-term solution to the Ukraine crisis, however, is more dynamic and complex, which needs scrutiny through the prism of various players involved, including Russia and the US. Hence, a brief understanding of the background to the ongoing Ukraine crisis is time-sensitive. The Euromaidan protest in 2014 was a watershed moment that reflected growing domestic complexities and foreign policy dilemmas since its inception post-Soviet disintegration. The growing financial crisis, demographic split, mobilisation of ethnic Russians, voting patterns that echoed a divide between pro-Europe and pro-Russian leadership, failure to create a pan-Ukrainian identity since its independence culminated in nationwide protest further yielding space for the involvement of external actors – Europe, the US and Russia in shaping the ethno-politics of Ukraine favourable to their respective foreign policy interests. The referendum and the accession of Crimea in 2014 by Russia further deteriorated the relations between Russia and the US-led Western allies. Reacting to Russia’s action in Ukraine led to the call for global isolation and economic sanctions on Russia. The ramifications of such measures by the West had a significant impact on Russia’s economic progress.
Alongside the recently concluded Alaska talks, efforts to implement a long-term solution to the Ukraine crisis had been initiated even in the past. The Minsk agreements (Minsk Agreement I (2014) and Minsk Agreement II (2015)) were a series of international accords established to address the conflict in Eastern Ukraine since the accession of Crimea in 2014, primarily between Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed ethnic Russians. France, Germany, and the OSCE acted as mediators in negotiations between the Ukrainian government and the self-proclaimed independent ‘republics’ in Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts. But the Minsk agreements failed to yield the expected outcome, and Ukraine remained a frozen conflict until 2022. Notwithstanding, the Alaska talks 2025, though it ended with a ‘zero output’, it successfully brought two hostile global powers to the negotiating table, mainly focusing on a ‘common’ ground and interest to conclude the escalation in Ukraine.
Nevertheless, the deterioration of relations between the two has caused a diplomatic dilemma, given the likely domino effect it has had on ‘common’ partners such as India. India’s multi-vector foreign policy post-Soviet implosion has seen countries such as the US emerging as one of its critical partners. Today, the US has emerged as the leading defense supplier nation for India, given the latter’s quest for geographical diversification of its defense market. India has also ensured that its global presence extends beyond non-Western organizations such as BRICS and SCO, and hence its membership in the Quad, an informal strategic grouping that focuses on the Indo-Pacific region.
In hindsight, pivoting India away from its long-term ally, Russia, through recent hardball tactics —such as calls for imposing tariffs on oil purchases from Russia and similar actions in the past—is not unfamiliar. This approach is evident in the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) of 2017. This has caused anxiety and put to the test the bilateral engagement between India and the US.
Given the likely impact that the hostile relations between the US and Russia may have on India, New Delhi has welcomed and appreciated the progress made in the Alaska summit talks. Both countries are key players in India’s pursuit of a multi-alignment foreign policy. India will be hopeful that, like the past initiatives undertaken by the US to ensure strengthening of ties through ‘exceptionalism’, Washington may reassess its stand on India’s relations with its traditional partner – Russia, taking into consideration its national and foreign policy interests. While the US is in pursuit of an ‘America First’ policy, Washington’s bilateral engagement becomes meaningful when diplomacy is preferred over diktat, and India, in this regard, is too important a player to be ignored, given its own growth performance and its rise on the global platform.
