Faced with the Kremlin’s master, American diplomacy looks like a ‘drunken ship’. The Anchorage summit was a tragicomic illustration of this. Donald Trump, who boasted that he could end the war in 24 hours with disconcerting naivety, fell into the trap set by Vladimir Putin. The latter, a cold-blooded strategist and adept at the ‘salami technique’ of cutting his prey into pieces, knew how to exploit the vanity and short-term vision of his American counterpart. The report by Laure Mandeville, special correspondent for Le Figaro in Anchorage, is one of the best analyses available illustrating this ‘diplomacy of humiliation’. To better understand the Kremlin strategist’s objective, read Laure Mandeville’s article and refer to Françoise Thom’s analysis in Le Monde, which completes the picture.
Table of Contents
from Joël-François Dumont — Paris, August 18, 2025 —
The Anchorage summit, as strikingly deciphered by Laure Mandeville echoing the American press, unfortunately highlighted the flagrant limitations of President Donald Trump’s « deal-making » art, supposedly the hallmark of his diplomatic genius. Far from asserting himself as a master negotiator, he gave the impression of a man whose ego, narcissism, and hubris led him to a significant loss of credibility on the international stage, appearing to the world as a true paper tiger.
Upon taking office last January, Donald Trump had dreamed of being a « peacemaker and champion of an America regaining its greatness in a world devoted to commerce ». In less than six months, he had demonstrated a certain aptitude for mediating old conflicts that had resisted even the most seasoned diplomats, such as the one between Azerbaijan and Armenia. In a more combative mode, he had also proven his determination to use force to ensure nuclear non-proliferation, even ordering the bombing of Iran. However, the war of aggression waged by Russia in Ukraine, and more broadly, Russian imperial revisionism, stood before him like a « colossal iceberg ».
The Failure of the Art of the Deal Against the Russian Iceberg
The Anchorage summit « showed with éclat » that the American president « unfortunately gives no impression of being capable of exercising on this subject the balance of power he has privileged elsewhere ». Trump’s stated goal of extracting a ceasefire from the master of the Kremlin « proved to be a failure ». Having campaigned with the promise, « uttered with a lightness and naivety that only the ignorant can have, » to end the war « in 24 hours », Donald Trump learned the hard way that he was tackling a « complex matter ». Six months of efforts had yielded nothing, despite a hardening of tone from the American side.
This setback is all the more striking as Trump « did not renew the threat of severe sanctions he had evoked ». Putin’s inflexible position, who had warned that he remained determined to tackle « the deep roots of the conflict »—meaning his desire to control all four partially conquered Ukrainian regions in addition to Crimea, as well as Ukraine’s renunciation of NATO and a right to scrutinize its demilitarization—evidently caught Trump off guard. For Putin, a ceasefire had « never been on the agenda, because his goal remains to control the destiny of Ukraine ».
Trump’s own statements before the trip to Anchorage, where he had admitted that « Negotiating will be difficult. Maybe Putin doesn’t want peace. Russians are like that, they wage war, » make « the organization of the meeting inexplicable ». This situation raises questions about a misassessment of the Russian position by his emissary Steve Witkoff, whose « staggering incompetence » on the Russian issue is highlighted. More fundamentally, it questions the president’s « excessive confidence » in his own « powers of persuasion ». An observer quoted by Laure Mandeville summarizes the main flaw in this approach: « «Since flattery works with him, Trump thought it would work with Putin!» ». This observation underscores the influence of Trump’s ego and narcissism on his diplomatic judgment.
The « Drunken Boat » and Self-Inflicted Humiliation
The Anchorage summit led to a « self-inflicted humiliation » of American diplomacy. The very title of the article, « In Anchorage, the Kremlin Master’s Ascendancy Over the Drunken Boat of American Diplomacy, » perfectly summarizes this perception. Trump’s « about-faces », his apparent « profound unfamiliarity with the adversary, » and his « lack of reflection on the moral rules it would be essential to establish from the outset » gave the impression of a « drunken boat tossed about by presidential whims ». This image of American diplomacy, disoriented and without clear direction, is one of the most striking illustrations of the loss of credibility and the perception of Trump as a « paper tiger. »
The reception given to Vladimir Putin in Anchorage was perceived as a « spectacular legitimation » offered on a platter to the despot. The former KGB officer, responsible for the death of over a million people, was « received with a profusion of honors »: the rolling out of the red carpet on the tarmac, applause from Trump who came to greet him, boarding his presidential Cadillac, and even the fact that the American gave him the floor first during a press briefing without questions. This whole spectacle had « something indecent », particularly the meeting’s slogan, « In Pursuit of Peace, » even as Putin is the one who unleashed the war and hundreds of Russian missiles continue to fall daily on Ukraine. For Russian media, the conclusion was clear: a « reintegration of their leader into the international game » and a « normalization of Russo-American relations ».
This scene provoked a strong reaction from observers. Andrew Michta, a keen expert on Russia and strategic relations, commented with dismay: « «It was unbearable to watch, and I told myself, seeing that spectacle: is this really my country allowing itself to be humiliated by prostrating itself before an ex-KGB officer who is responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of people?» ». This poignant testimony illustrates the depth of the feeling of humiliation and the questioning of the American stance under Trump, who, through his persistent « fascination » with Putin—a mystery of the Trump era since 2015, having even called the invasion of Ukraine « a stroke of genius » in 2022—contributed to this discredit. This « pro-Putin leaning », with some seeing it as proof of past recruitment by Russian services and others as an expression of his « penchant for authoritarian regimes », made the American president’s image particularly vulnerable.
Laure Mandeville highlights the fundamental difference between the two men: Trump is described as a « hot-blooded emotional, endowed with a visceral instinct. He manages on sight, probing the terrain, even if it means abruptly changing his stance ». In contrast, Putin is « a cold-blooded animal, who gauges his adversary in advance », whose preferred terrain is « hybrid warfare and psychological destabilization ». This distinction explains why Trump’s transactional approach hit a wall against Putin’s long-term strategy.
Consequences of a Drifting Diplomacy
The great concern that emerged from the Anchorage summit is that Donald Trump might « embrace Russia’s position on territorial concessions to be made, and impose a deal on Zelensky », thus forcing Ukraine into an « unacceptable capitulation by threatening to cut off its supplies ». When asked by TV host Sean Hannity what advice he would give Zelensky after Anchorage, Trump’s answer was unequivocal: « «Accept the deal. Russia is strong. It’s a great power, not Ukraine,» ». This stance, which devalues Ukraine and supports Russia, is a major concession that significantly weakens Ukraine’s position and American credibility as an unwavering ally. Trump abandoned the idea of a prior ceasefire to rally to Putin’s idea of direct negotiations, allowing the master of the Kremlin to continue « bombing Ukrainian cities ».
Putin, according to Russologist Françoise Thom, thinks « long term »: his goal is to « «win the war, make Ukraine capitulate while gradually dismembering it using the salami technique,» ». He aims to « «hire» his American interlocutor to carry out his project », believing that restoring ties with Washington restores Moscow’s status, even if America remains for him the « fundamental enemy ». This strategic ambition contrasts sharply with Trump’s profile, a « transactional short-termist, who believes in the virtues of commerce and thinks that interest is a major factor in international relations ».
Although a « rare piece of good news » was Trump’s proposal for Americans to participate in security guarantees for Ukraine, an approach previously refused by the White House, their « exact content remains vague ». Despite the analysis, notably by Max Boot in the Washington Post, that the outcome « could have been much worse »—the sequence did not lead to a « Yalta of the Arctic »—the overall impression is that of a president who, by his impulsive style and lack of strategic discernment, has lost his ascendancy.
The Wall Street Journal summarizes the situation with two scenarios for Ukraine: « «Ukraine could lose territory, but survive as a sovereign and secure country, though diminished. Alternatively, it could lose land and sovereignty, and fall back into the Russian sphere of influence.» ». This prospect of America being ready to « accept the definitive loss of territories for Ukraine, and thus to legitimize a dangerous dynamic of Russian aggression for the future, because appetite comes with eating, » underlines the gravity of the situation and the loss of credibility of American diplomacy in the eyes of its allies. The future of Europe and the free world may well be decided through these « crucial «details» that we mistakenly believe are of local significance ».
Ultimately, the Anchorage summit, as depicted by Laure Mandeville, presented an image of Donald Trump whose art of the deal, based on persuasion, overt strength, and ultimately, a certain narcissism, proved ineffective against Vladimir Putin’s strategic determination. The « self-inflicted humiliation » and the feeling of a drifting American diplomacy contributed to portraying him as a « paper tiger », whose ego and hubris had eroded his credibility on the world stage.
Joël-François Dumont
