With flattery and warnings, Russia tries to revive ‘spirit of Alaska’ with US

US President Donald Trump (R) and Russian President Vladimir Putin deliver a joint press conference after their summit on Ukraine in Anchorage, Alaska, on August 15, 2025. (AFP file photo)
Short Url
Updated 11 October 2025
Follow

With flattery and warnings, Russia tries to revive ‘spirit of Alaska’ with US

  • Russia has tried playing good cop, bad cop — with officials at times appearing to threaten tough responses to US action and at others underlining shared values
  • On Friday, Putin praised Trump’s credentials as a potential Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and it sounded like music to Trump

MOSCOW: Two months after a smiling Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin shook hands at a military base in Alaska in what looked like the start of a US-Russia rapprochement, a top Russian diplomat has raised doubts that the “spirit of Alaska” is still alive.
For Russia, the Anchorage summit on August 15 had two goals: to persuade President Trump to lean on Ukraine and Europe to agree to a peace settlement favorable to Moscow, and to encourage a rapprochement in US-Russia ties.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said this week there had been scant progress on either front and “powerful momentum” had been lost. Moscow had signalled it was ready to rebuild ties but Washington had not reciprocated, he said.
“We have a certain edifice of relations that has cracked and is collapsing,” Ryabkov said. “Now the cracks have reached the foundation.”

Putin says complex issues require more study
After Ryabkov spoke, a Kremlin aide and Putin’s spokesman underlined that contacts with Washington continue, and the Russian leader sounded more optimistic than Ryabkov when asked about Ukraine and ties with the US on Friday.
“These are complex issues that require further consideration. But we remain committed to the discussion that took place in Anchorage,” Putin told a press conference.
His aide later told the Kommersant newspaper that Russia had agreed to unspecified concessions at the Alaska summit it would be ready to make if Trump got certain things from Ukraine and the Europeans.
Such a contrast in tone among senior officials is rare in Moscow and highlights the delicacy and sensitivity of the twin-track approach Russia is taking — combining flattery and warnings to adapt to diplomatic reversals since the summit.

Trump’s frustration 
While a Trump initiative has raised hopes of peace in Gaza, he is frustrated by his failure to broker an end to fighting in Ukraine and has soured, at least publicly, on Russia.
There is no new Trump-Putin meeting on the agenda, no date has been set for the next talks on improving ties, and Washington, without an ambassador in Moscow since June, has not sought Russia’s approval to send a successor.
Trump has spoken of possibly supplying Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine, hitting a nerve with Putin, who said it would destroy what is left of US-Russia ties.
Trump has also said he wants Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to hold direct talks, but there appears no near-term prospect of that happening as the tempo of the war increases.
In a rhetorical U-turn, Trump has suggested Ukraine could win back all its lost territory, while dismissing Russia as “a paper tiger,” a snipe shrugged off by Moscow.

Music to Trump's ears
In response, Russia has tried playing good cop, bad cop — with officials at times appearing to threaten tough responses to US action and at others underlining shared values.
Putin offered to voluntarily maintain limits on deployed strategic nuclear weapons set out in the last arms control treaty with the US once it expires next year if Washington does the same.
Trump said “it sounds like a good idea,” but there has been no formal US response.
Putin on Friday praised Trump’s credentials as a potential Nobel Peace Prize laureate, saying his efforts to bring peace to Ukraine were sincere and that his Middle East mediation initiative was already an achievement and would be “a historic event” if he was able to see it through to the end.

 

Trump took to social media to show he had noted the praise: “Thank you to President Putin!” he wrote on Truth Social.
Melania Trump also disclosed on Friday that she had secured an open line of communication with Putin about repatriating Ukrainian children caught up in the war, and that some had been returned to their families with more to be reunited soon.
Kirill Dmitriev, Putin’s presidential envoy, said Moscow appreciated Melania Trump’s “humanitarian leadership.”
At a foreign policy conference this month, Putin also went out of his way to make a series of US-focused statements likely to appeal to Trump.
Putin praised Michael Gloss, the son of a CIA official killed in Ukraine fighting on Russia’s side, saying he represented “the core of the MAGA movement, which supports President Trump.”
He also condemned the murder of Trump ally Charlie Kirk, saying Kirk had defended the “traditional values” which he said Gloss and Russian soldiers in Ukraine were giving their lives to defend.

Pushback, warnings and disappointment
But warnings have continued, and pushback against Trump’s talk of supplying Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine was immediate.
Putin said such a step would require the direct involvement of US military personnel, destroy bilateral relations and usher in a new stage of escalation.
Andrei Kartapolov, who heads Russian parliament’s defense committee, said Moscow would shoot down Tomahawk missiles and bomb their launch sites if the US supplied them, and find a way to retaliate against Washington that hurts.
In other terse comments, Ryabkov said Russia would quickly carry out a nuclear test if the US did the same, and that Moscow would “get by” if Washington did not take up Putin’s nuclear arms control offer.
Ryabkov also backed off a Russian offer to discuss the fate of US nuclear fuel at a nuclear plant Moscow controls in southern Ukraine, and spoke of how Russia was withdrawing from an agreement with the US to destroy weapons-grade plutonium.
“After the summit in Alaska, there was hope that Trump was ready to continue dialogue with Russia and take our interests into account,” wrote Andrei Baranov, a commentator for pro-Kremlin newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda.
“Donald has now thoroughly disappointed us with his trademark inconsistency.”


Congress taking first votes on Iran war as debate rages about US goals

Updated 6 sec ago
Follow

Congress taking first votes on Iran war as debate rages about US goals

  • The US Senate is headed toward a vote on President Donald Trump’s decision to embark on a war against Iran
  • It’s an extraordinary test in Congress for a conflict that has rapidly spread across the Middle East with no clear US exit strategy
WASHINGTON: The US Senate is headed toward a vote Wednesday on President Donald Trump’s decision to embark on a war against Iran, an extraordinary test in Congress for a conflict that has rapidly spread across the Middle East with no clear US exit strategy.
The legislation, known as a war powers resolution, gives lawmakers an opportunity to demand congressional approval before any further attacks are carried out. The Senate resolution and a similar bill being voted on in the House later this week face unlikely paths through the Republican-controlled Congress and would almost certainly be vetoed by Trump even if they were to pass.
Nonetheless, the votes marked a weighty moment for lawmakers. Their decisions on the five-day-old war — which Trump entered without congressional approval — could determine the fates of US military members, countless other lives and the future of the region.
“Wars without clear objectives do not remain small. They get bigger, bloodier, longer and more expensive,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer at a news conference Tuesday. “This is not a necessary war. It’s a war of choice.”
Trump administration scrambles for congressional support
After launching a surprise attack against Iran on Saturday, Trump has scrambled to win support for a conflict that Americans of all political persuasions were already wary of entering. Trump administration officials have been a frequent presence on Capitol Hill this week as they try to reassure lawmakers that they have the situation under control.
“We are not going to put American troops in harm’s way,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters in a raucous news conference at the Capitol Tuesday.
But six US military members were killed over the weekend in a drone strike in Kuwait.
Trump has also not ruled out deploying US ground troops. He has said he is hoping to end the bombing campaign within a few weeks, but his goals for the war have shifted from regime change to stopping Iran from developing nuclear capabilities to crippling its navy and missile programs.
“I think they are achieving great success with what they’ve done so far,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Tuesday, adding that what happens next in the country will be “largely up to the Iranian people.”
Almost all Republican senators were readying to vote Wednesday against the war powers resolution to halt military action, but a number still expressed hesitation at the idea of deploying troops on the ground in Iran.
“I don’t think the American people want to see troops on the ground,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, as he exited a classified briefing Tuesday. He added that Trump administration officials “left open that possibility,” but it wasn’t an option they were emphasizing.
Lawmakers to go on record
The votes in Congress this week represented potentially consequential markers of just where lawmakers stand on the war as they look ahead to midterm elections and the consequences of the conflict.
“Nobody gets to hide and give the president an easy pass or an end-run around the Constitution,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, the Virginia Democrat leading the war powers resolution. “Everybody’s got to declare whether they’re for this war or against it.”
Republican leaders have successfully, though narrowly, defeated a series of war powers resolutions pertaining to several other conflicts that Trump has entered or threatened to enter. This one, however, is different.
Unlike Trump’s military campaigns against alleged drug boats or even Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, the attack on Iran represents an open-ended conflict that is already ricocheting across the region. For Republicans who are used to operating in a political party dominated by Trump and his promises of keeping the US out of foreign entanglements, the moment represented a bit of whiplash.
“War is ugly, it always has been ugly, but we’re taking out a regime that has been trying to attack us for quite some time,” said Sen. Markwayne Mullin, an Oklahoma Republican.
Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has long pushed Trump to engage overseas, argued that the widening conflict represented an opportunity for Arab and European countries to join in the fight against Iran and the militant groups it supports.
“I don’t mind people being on record as to whether or not they think this is a good idea,” he told reporters, but also argued that too much power over the military was ceded to Congress in the War Powers Act, which mandates that presidents must withdraw troops from a conflict within 90 days if there is no congressional authorization.
House vote looms
On the other side of the Capitol, House leaders were also readying for an intense debate over the war followed by a vote Thursday.
“I do believe we have the votes to defeat it, I certainly hope we do,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said after an all-member briefing on Tuesday night.
Meanwhile, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said he expected a strong showing from Democrats in favor of the war powers resolution.
As lawmakers emerged from a closed-door briefing Tuesday night, Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, implored the Trump administration to “come to Congress” and speak directly to the American people about the rationale for the war.
His voice filled with emotion as he said, “Our young men and women’s lives are on the line.”