The peace delusion

Though Putin and Trump share a tactical interest in cooperation, Russia remains a strategic adversary for the US imperial state, and Russia knows it, which is why true peace remains out of reach

I’ve written for UnHerd about the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska and the subsequent meeting with Zelensky and European leaders in Washington, and what these developments mean for the prospects of ending the war in Ukraine.

Let’s start with the good news. The Anchorage, Alaska meeting formally reestablished direct dialogue between the world’s two largest military and nuclear powers. It marked the first face-to-face meeting between a US and Russian president since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, and the first such encounter on American soil in nearly two decades, signalling a turning point in US-Russia relations which, since 2022, had reached levels of hostility not seen since the Cold War. This is obviously good news for anyone interested in avoid thermonuclear war.

Yet a comprehensive political settlement to the Ukraine war continues to remain elusive. Not only because Europe and Zelensky remain opposed to any deal on Russian terms — the only possibile terms, given that Russia is winning the war — for reasons that I explain in the article. But more fundamentally because achieving lasting peace is about much more than just recognising Russia’s control over Crimea and the four annexed oblasts; it’s about addressing the “primary roots of the conflict”, as Putin repeated in Anchorage: that Ukraine will never join NATO, that the West will not transform it into a de facto military outpost on Russia’s border and that a broader “balance of security in Europe” be restored. This effectively amounts to a wholesale reconfiguration of the global security order — one that would reduce NATO’s role, end US supremacy and acknowledge a multipolar world in which other powers can rise without Western interference.

This is something Trump — and more fundamentally the US imperial establishment, which operates largely independent of whoever occupies the White House — cannot concede to. As I write in the article:

For all his rhetoric about ending “forever wars”, Trump continues to embrace a fundamentally supremacist vision of America’s role in the world — albeit a more pragmatic one than that of the liberal-imperialist establishment. His administration continues to support NATO rearmament and even the redeployment of US nuclear weapons along multiple fronts, from the UK to the Pacific. Trump’s policies toward China, Iran and the broader Middle East confirm that Washington still sees itself as an empire whose global dominance must be preserved at all costs — not only through economic pressure, but also through military confrontation when deemed necessary.

Within this framework, Russia remains a central challenge. As a pivotal ally of both China and Iran, it is embedded in the architecture of the emerging multipolar order that threatens US hegemony. For Washington, Moscow is not simply a regional actor but a key node in a broader strategic realignment.

Trump, however, appears willing — at least temporarily — to put the “Russia problem” on hold, focusing instead on the larger confrontation with China. But this indicates a shift in priorities rather than principles: the logic of American supremacy ensures that Russia will remain on the list of adversaries, even if the spotlight briefly shifts elsewhere.

In this sense, Trump would probably be content with a scenario in which the US extricates itself from the Ukrainian debacle while leaving Europe to shoulder the burden a while longer — possibly until conditions on the ground deteriorate so severely that a settlement on Russian terms becomes unavoidable. Indeed, JD Vance and Pete Hegseth said as much, arguing that the US will stop funding the war, but Europe can continue if it wishes — buying American weapons in the process. This “division of labour” would allow Washington to reallocate resources to the coming confrontation with China, while leaving Europeans stuck in an unwinnable war.

The Russians are well aware of all this. They likely harbour no illusions about the real objectives of the US imperial establishment. And they know full well that any deal struck with Trump could be overturned at any moment. However, Putin’s short-term goals align with Trump’s. One could say that Russia and the United States are strategic adversaries whose leaders nonetheless share a tactical interest in cooperation.

Seen in this light, one might postulate that the purpose of the Alaska summit was never to secure a final peace agreement. Both Trump and Putin doubtless understand that such a deal is currently impossible. Rather, the meeting was about allowing the US to step back from Ukraine without admitting defeat, while Russia continues to advance.

Read the article here. If you’re a paid subscriber and can’t access the article, write to me at thomasfazi82@gmail.com.

---

Thanks for reading. Putting out high-quality journalism requires constant research, most of which goes unpaid, so if you appreciate my writing please consider upgrading to a paid subscription if you haven’t already. Aside from a fuzzy feeling inside of you, you’ll get access to exclusive articles and commentary.

Thomas Fazi

Website: thomasfazi.net

Twitter: @battleforeurope

Latest book: The Covid Consensus: The Global Assault on Democracy and the Poor—A Critique from the Left (co-authored with Toby Green)