Trump-Putin Alaska summit hailed by politicians in Moscow, met with caution in Kyiv

Russian and Ukrainian politicians and media figures have struck drastically different tones in response to the high-stakes summit between Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump in Alaska on Friday, with the reaction in Kyiv so far muted in comparison to more triumphant commentary coming from in Moscow.

The meeting — the first between Trump and Putin since the US president’s return to office — had been billed as an attempt to reset relations between Washington and Moscow after years of hostility and confrontation over Ukraine. 

While Russian officials and state media framed the talks as a diplomatic victory cementing Moscow’s global status, Ukrainian leaders voiced unease, warning that the outcomes risk sidelining Kyiv’s interests and weakening Western unity.

“The fact the meeting took place in Alaska itself, its tone and its outcomes represent a significant and joint success for both presidents, each of whom made a colossal personal contribution to allow the maximum possible results to be achieved today,” one lawmaker, Konstantin Kosachyov, who chairs the Federation Council’s Foreign Affairs Committee, wrote on Telegram of the meeting between Trump and Putin. 

Similarly, Dmitry Belik, a member of the lower house of Russian parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, hailed the summit in an interview with state-owned propaganda broadcaster RT as “an example of constructive interaction between world powers” which had taken place “regardless of the opinions of individual representatives of the West engaged in anti-Russian hysteria".

Russian propagandists have struck a similarly triumphant tone, with political scientist and TV presenter Dimitri Simes saying on Russia’s state-run Channel One on Saturday morning that the summit had shown that Putin was “a serious leader who can and should be treated with respect,” and noted that the situation seemed to be developing in Russia’s favour.

Meanwhile, Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president who made headlines last month for a social media spat with Trump, highlighted the US leader’s decision “to stop escalating pressure on Russia” as a key outcome of the summit, noting that it proved that “negotiations without preconditions are possible while the special military operation continues”, using the preferred Russian propaganda term for the invasion of Ukraine.

In Kyiv, on the other hand, the reactions from Ukrainian politicians have been more sombre, particularly in response to Donald Trump’s assertion in an interview with Fox News that it was now “up to President Volodymyr Zelensky” to help bring the war to an end.

Zelensky confirmed Ukraine’s readiness “to work as productively as possible for the sake of peace” in a Saturday post on his Telegram channel, adding that his visit to Washington had been planned following a lengthy telephone conversation with Trump.

“We support President Trump’s proposal for a trilateral meeting between Ukraine, America and Russia. Ukraine emphasises that key issues can be discussed at the level of leaders, and the trilateral format is suitable for this,” Zelensky said.

Oleksandr Merezhko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament and the chair of its Foreign Affairs Committee, told Reuters that the summit appeared to have brought little real change, though he welcomed the fact that Ukraine appeared to have avoided what he called the “worst-case scenario”, namely being forced into a deal that required Kyiv to make crushing concessions.

"As we expected, nothing happened. No results, and everyone stands their ground. Putin did not back down from his ultimatum, Trump wanted to show that he is a great dealmaker, but he failed,” he said.

Another prominent lawmaker, Oleksiy Honcharenko, wrote that considering “no ceasefire or de-escalation was agreed upon,” it seemed as if “Putin has bought some time” for Russia, and called for more pressure to be put on China to actively help achieve peace.