Disappointment is heard in Moscow: Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov stated that hopes for progress in resolving the war in Ukraine, which had emerged after the August meeting between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump in Anchorage, have effectively vanished. The negotiation process, seen by many as a rare chance for de-escalation and the restoration of dialogue, has sunk into stagnation.
On August 15, at the Elmendorf-Richardson military base in Alaska, the first in a long time face-to-face meeting of the Russian and U.S. leaders took place. It fueled expectations that Washington and Moscow might find a formula to at least freeze hostilities, launch humanitarian initiatives, and reduce the level of conflict. Donald Trump, who returned to the White House with the promise to “end the war quickly,” spoke then of “real progress,” while Vladimir Putin publicly called the dialogue constructive and said it had “brought the sides closer to the necessary solutions.” But the loud statements were not followed by concrete agreements: neither a ceasefire deal nor a negotiation roadmap was reached. The expanded-format meetings meant to solidify understandings never materialized.
According to Ryabkov, active resistance from certain European capitals effectively nullified the negotiation momentum. He used sharp rhetoric, referring to “supporters of war to the last Ukrainian,” hinting that the interest in continuing the conflict outweighed the desire to seek a way out. Moscow believes these forces made it impossible to consolidate the progress achieved in Anchorage. Meanwhile, unity was also lacking in U.S. politics: parts of Congress reacted skeptically to the president’s attempt at direct dialogue with Moscow, while NATO allies preferred to stick with the pressure strategy.
Interestingly, the official assessments after the summit sounded optimistic: Trump praised the meeting as “10 out of 10,” and the Russian side spoke of a “powerful impulse.” Today, these words echo like a turning point that never came. The chosen venue — American Alaska, historically tied to Russia — seemed symbolic of a potential reset but ended up as a one-off episode with no continuation.
The fading of negotiating energy sends several signals. First, the likelihood of a swift peaceful scenario is diminishing: military solutions and pressure from both sides are moving to the forefront. Second, the U.S.’s image as a potential mediator suffers: Washington launched the process but failed to keep control over it. This could become a vulnerability for Trump, who vowed to “end the war in the shortest possible time.” Moreover, tensions between Moscow and European capitals accused of derailing the talks may further complicate any new dialogue attempts. Each such statement is another brick in the wall of mistrust that could take years to dismantle.
If the diplomatic process completely freezes, escalation is likely to intensify: new arms supplies to Kyiv, harsher rhetoric from Moscow, and a higher risk of incidents that could upset the fragile balance. At the same time, history shows examples where “dead” negotiations unexpectedly came back to life: loud declarations of deadlock are sometimes used as pressure tools to push opponents toward new initiatives. Today, however, Moscow’s tone sounds like a warning: previous dialogue efforts have run their course, and the space for quick agreements is narrowing. If no new momentum emerges, the conflict risks becoming even more deeply entrenched in the logic of war rather than peace.
