No Peace Without Fairness, Lessons from the Alaska Summit and Global Geopolitics
Introduction
Peace negotiations, especially in the modern multipolar world, are rarely straightforward. They are shaped not only by immediate conflicts but also by broader global rivalries, shifting alliances, and the personal ambitions of leaders. The recent U.S.–Russia summit in Anchorage, Alaska, held under the watch of U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, epitomized these complexities.
While expectations were high that the summit might offer relief in the Russia–Ukraine war, its outcomes were far more muted. For India, the summit was a minor disappointment: the U.S. did not lift its 25% secondary tariff on Indian imports, which had been imposed under the pretext of India’s purchase of Russian oil. Globally, the talks reinforced the reality that there is no peace until both sides see it as fair.
This analysis examines the summit’s implications for India, Europe, and West Asia, while also exploring why Gaza, rather than Ukraine, may offer Trump a better chance at lasting peace — and perhaps even the Nobel Prize he so clearly desires.
The Alaska Summit: Hopes vs. Reality
The Anchorage meeting was billed as a chance to discuss a possible ceasefire in Ukraine, but expectations quickly deflated. Trump’s statement afterward was telling:
“There is no deal until there’s a deal.”
This underscored the lack of any concrete outcome. Unlike historic summits such as Yalta (1945), which redrew the map of postwar Europe, Alaska was neither a grand bargain nor a reset. It was simply another step in protracted negotiations, with both sides unwilling to make real concessions.
For India, the biggest hope had been the removal of the U.S.’s punitive tariff on Indian imports, imposed as “punishment” for buying Russian oil. The Alaska talks offered no relief, leaving New Delhi frustrated. India has long balanced its strategic ties with both the U.S. and Russia, but Trump’s tariff policy has strained relations unnecessarily.
Why the Summit Fell Short
Several reasons explain the summit’s lackluster outcome:
-
Stalemate in Ukraine
-
Russia refuses to cede occupied territories.
-
Ukraine insists on territorial integrity, backed by NATO and the EU.
-
Any deal without buy-in from both sides is meaningless.
-
-
Trump’s Ambitions vs. Reality
-
Trump wants a “Peace Agreement” rather than a fragile ceasefire, but the conditions are nowhere near ripe.
-
His portrayal of leverage over Moscow was met with skepticism, even ridicule.
-
-
India as a Collateral Victim
-
The 25% U.S. tariff on Indian goods, tied to Russian oil purchases, was left unresolved.
-
New Delhi sees this as unfair, especially since China, the largest buyer of Russian oil, faced no such penalty.
-
-
European Reluctance
-
European leaders remain deeply invested in supporting Kyiv.
-
For them, peace talks that fall short of Ukraine’s full sovereignty are unacceptable.
-
Peace in Europe: A Steep Challenge
Trump faces a high bar in Europe. War-weary locals in Ukraine and neighboring states demand nothing short of justice — which means Russian withdrawal. Anything less would be viewed as betrayal.
European leaders, bound by NATO commitments and their own history, are unwilling to concede ground. Thus, even if Trump sincerely pushes for peace, his room to maneuver is limited. The Alaska summit highlighted this reality: while talks may continue, the path to a durable peace settlement in Europe remains blocked by entrenched positions.
India’s Perspective
For India, the Alaska outcome was disappointing but not devastating. Its main concern is the ongoing tariff dispute with the U.S. Indian policymakers had hoped that broader U.S.–Russia negotiations might create space for resolving Washington’s punitive measures on New Delhi.
Instead, the tariff issue remains unresolved, adding friction to U.S.–India trade ties. Trump’s approach, portraying India as collateral damage in his Russia strategy, has undermined trust.
Yet India’s strategic calculus remains nuanced:
-
It values its defense and energy ties with Russia.
-
It sees the U.S. as a crucial partner for technology, trade, and countering China.
-
Therefore, New Delhi must continue balancing diplomacy, resisting the temptation to retaliate economically while pushing for relief through dialogue.
The Nobel Prize Factor
A striking subtext to Trump’s diplomacy is his desire for a Nobel Peace Prize. The Alaska summit, however, brought him no closer.
Historically, peace deals that yielded Nobel recognition — such as the Oslo Accords of 1993–94 — involved genuine breakthroughs that brought opposing sides together on the principle of fairness. By contrast, the Alaska talks offered no concessions, no frameworks, and no buy-in from Ukraine.
This raises the question: if not Europe, then where might Trump find his Nobel moment? The article suggests the answer lies in West Asia — specifically Gaza.
Gaza: A Possible Peace Pathway
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza, worsened by Israel’s heavy military campaigns and the near-total blockade, has left Palestinians in desperate conditions. Unlike Ukraine, where entrenched geopolitical rivalries make peace elusive, Gaza offers clearer parameters for a deal:
-
Two-State Solution Foundations
-
The idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel already exists in international law.
-
The Oslo Accords, though derailed, remain a template.
-
-
Balance of Risks and Rewards
-
Palestinians seek relief, autonomy, and dignity.
-
Israel seeks security guarantees.
-
A fair agreement addressing both could win broad support.
-
-
U.S. Leverage
-
As Israel’s closest ally, the U.S. holds more sway here than in Eastern Europe.
-
Trump, if he chooses, could press Israel toward concessions while assuring its security.
-
-
Geopolitical Bonus
-
A successful peace deal in Gaza would counter the Global South’s perception of the U.S. as an imperialist power.
-
It would mark Trump as a peacemaker rather than a warmonger.
-
Challenges in Gaza
Of course, peace in Gaza is not easy. Resistance exists within Israel, where right-wing politics oppose territorial concessions. Within Palestine, divisions between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority complicate negotiations. Moreover, Iran’s influence in the region makes external meddling inevitable.
Still, compared to Ukraine, Gaza offers greater chances of success:
-
The contours of a fair solution are more visible.
-
The humanitarian urgency creates moral pressure.
-
The U.S. has greater leverage over the key players.
The Broader Lesson: Fairness is Essential
The Alaska summit reinforced a timeless principle: there is no peace until both sides see it as fair.
-
In Ukraine, fairness requires Russia’s withdrawal and Ukraine’s sovereignty — conditions Moscow resists.
-
In Gaza, fairness means balancing Palestinian dignity with Israeli security — difficult, but not impossible.
Trump’s challenge, therefore, is to recognize where his efforts can truly make a difference. His ambition for a Nobel Prize may not be fulfilled in Europe, but West Asia remains a plausible stage.
Conclusion
The Alaska summit was a reminder that global peace cannot be imposed; it must be negotiated with fairness at its core. For India, the immediate disappointment was the continuation of U.S. tariffs, but the larger picture lies in how global powers define peace in their spheres of influence.
In Europe, entrenched rivalries make peace elusive. In West Asia, however, opportunities remain. If Trump is serious about leaving behind a legacy of peace, Gaza — not Ukraine — may be his best chance.
The world must remember: peace is not merely the absence of war, but the presence of justice. Without fairness, no agreement can endure.
5 Exam-Oriented Q&A
Q1. Why was the Alaska summit between Trump and Putin considered a disappointment for India?
A1. Because the U.S. did not remove its 25% secondary tariff on Indian imports, which had been imposed as punishment for India’s purchase of Russian oil. India had hoped for relief, but the issue remained unresolved.
Q2. What did Trump mean when he said, “There is no deal until there’s a deal”?
A2. He implied that the Alaska summit produced no concrete agreements. Talks would continue, but no ceasefire or peace framework had been finalized, reflecting the stalemate in the Russia–Ukraine conflict.
Q3. Why is Europe a difficult theater for Trump to broker peace?
A3. Because Ukraine demands full territorial integrity, while Russia refuses to withdraw from occupied areas. NATO and European allies firmly back Ukraine, leaving little room for compromise acceptable to both sides.
Q4. Why might Gaza offer Trump a better chance at peace than Ukraine?
A4. In Gaza, the parameters of a fair settlement — Palestinian autonomy balanced with Israeli security — are clearer. The U.S. wields strong influence over Israel, giving Trump greater leverage. A Gaza peace deal could also reshape America’s image globally.
Q5. What is the central principle highlighted by the Alaska summit?
A5. That peace cannot last unless both sides view the settlement as fair. Without mutual perception of justice, any ceasefire or agreement risks collapse.
