Berlin, Germany (Weltexpress). Against the backdrop of hysterical reactions in Kiev and EU capitals, Professors Jeffrey Sachs and Glenn Diesen attempted to clarify this question in a discussion on YouTube.
The upcoming summit in Alaska has sparked intense speculation about its possible impact on US-Russia relations and the future of Ukraine and EU countries. In a recent discussion between Professor Glenn Diesen and Professor Jeffrey Sachs, the two scholars analysed the motivations, challenges and possible outcomes of this hastily organised meeting. They examined whether the summit is political theatre, a serious attempt to transform US-Russian relations, or merely a deception by a president known for his inconsistency and susceptibility to political pressure.
The discussion reveals a mixture of cautious hope and deep scepticism, particularly regarding US President Donald Trump’s ability to stand up to the warmongers in the political establishment and achieve meaningful diplomatic progress.
Political theatre or real diplomacy?
The announcement of the summit came as a surprise, and its timing, location and lack of a clear agenda raise questions about its purpose. Professor Sachs highlights the chaotic nature of Trump’s communication style, noting that his reliance on platforms such as Truth Social and his tendency to make contradictory statements create an environment of incoherence. Sachs describes Trump’s approach as ‘childish’ and, especially in a world with nuclear-armed nations, highly ‘dangerous.’ Therefore, it seems reasonable to suspect that Trump could be using the summit as political theatre – a performance aimed at gaining attention and recognition rather than addressing substantive issues. In this context, Prof. Sachs also mentions that Trump is downright obsessed with winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
In fact, Trump has repeatedly nominated himself for the prize, emphasising, among other things, that he has already ended five wars since taking office. With a ceasefire in Ukraine brokered by him, Trump apparently believes that no one could deny him this honour. But time is pressing, because the Nobel Prize Committee’s decision on who will receive the next prize will be made on 10 October. This would explain why Trump was in such a hurry to hold the summit this coming weekend. Incidentally, according to the Nobel Prize Committee, 338 candidates have been officially nominated for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, including 244 individuals and 94 organisations. This was announced by the Norwegian Nobel Institute on 5 March 2025, when the deadline for nominations closed.
At minute 7 of the discussion on YouTube, Prof. Sachs says that all Trump wants is « recognition and applause. … But what would applause bring him now? If he reaches an agreement with Putin, then the President of the United States should say clearly and unequivocally: “NATO will not expand. We have no interest in encircling Russia. We will stop playing games.” Would that earn him recognition? No, it would probably earn him accusations of appeasement, weakness, a repeat of Munich.
And since Trump is not a thinker, has no knowledge and, in my opinion, is quite despondent, he doesn’t know how to stand up to that either. … I was optimistic when he took office because the underlying logic was that this war should never have happened. It was a war based on NATO expansion. A war based on a US-led coup in Ukraine in February 2014. A war based on the failure of Western countries to support and implement the Minsk II agreements. It was a war based on the failure of diplomacy. And Trump said he wanted a Nobel Peace Prize. So I thought, okay, he’ll get it if he does it right.
For a moment, there was a spark of hope when he told the truth. But as soon as he told the truth, that NATO was a provocation, everyone pounced on him – from the US Senate to his own advisers, his generals, to the Europeans Starmer, Scholz at the time, now Merz, Macron – who wants to tell the truth, who wants peace? It’s really a strange situation. »
According to Sachs, Trump briefly acknowledged the truth before facing significant backlash from the US Senate, his advisers and European leaders. However, this ‘moment of truth’ was quickly overshadowed by criticism, causing Trump to back away from this position. An internet search for where and when Trump allegedly said that NATO’s eastward expansion was a provocation yielded no results, even with the help of AI software. Nowhere can a statement be found where Trump personally made this statement. Only an article by Politico on 3 July 2024 reports that security experts close to Trump said he was considering a plan to block NATO’s eastward expansion, particularly into Ukraine and Georgia. However, this does not confirm a direct public statement by Trump himself.
Similarly, an article in the Economic Times on 30 May 2025 quotes US Special Representative Keith Kellogg as saying that Trump’s administration is open to discussing NATO’s eastward expansion in order to meet Russian demands. Again, there is no direct statement from Trump documenting that he considers NATO expansion to be a provocation. Against this backdrop, and considering that Trump is known for his inconsistency and susceptibility to political pressure, there is much to suggest that Trump does not expect much more from the summit than a big political show.
Turning point in American-Russian relations?
Despite justified scepticism, both discussants, the Norwegian Diesen and the American Sachs, recognise the summit’s potential to mark a turning point in relations between the two nuclear powers.
Professor Diesen expressed cautious optimism and welcomed the idea that decades of hostility could come to an end and relations could shift from hostile containment of Russia to friendly cooperation. He pointed out that the interests of the US and Russia do not necessarily have to clash. A shift in Trump’s rhetoric from demanding an ‘unconditional ceasefire’ to addressing NATO expansion could signal a serious commitment to peace, which, viewed soberly, will most likely remain a pipe dream.
Trump’s weaknesses and deceptions
Both discussants expressed considerable concern about Trump’s reputation for deception and his inability to stand up to the warmongering elements within the US political establishment.
Sachs is particularly critical in the interview, describing Trump as impulsive, lacking in detailed knowledge and making decisions ‘from the gut’. He argued that Trump’s desire for applause and recognition drives his actions more than a coherent strategy, making it difficult to trust his intentions.
Prof. Diesen shared these concerns, noting that the US political establishment clings to the narrative of a Western ‘victory’ over Russia, a mindset that Sachs considers virtually meaningless in the context of peacekeeping. The professors highlight the influence of the military-industrial complex, the CIA and warmongers such as Senator Lindsey Graham, who maintain an extremely confrontational stance towards Russia. This deep-rooted opposition makes it unlikely that Trump will be able to keep his promises on de-escalation, even if he were inclined to do so.
Sachs lamented in particular that Trump had failed to take a clear public stance against NATO expansion or the broader US strategy of encircling Russia, which undermines the potential for real diplomatic success.
Optimism dampened by structural realities
Despite the summit’s potential to address the root causes of the Ukraine conflict, such as NATO expansion and the US-led coup in Ukraine in 2014, the two remained sceptical about its success.
Sachs pointed to the broader context of US foreign policy, which he said had consistently provoked Russia through actions such as NATO’s eastward expansion, the bombing of Serbia and the failure to comply with the Minsk II agreements. As evidence of the US’s aggressive stance, he pointed to the 2019 RAND Corporation report entitled ‘Extending Russia,’ which outlines strategies for destabilising Russia. This systemic hostility, coupled with Europe’s refusal to engage in diplomacy with Russia, creates a difficult environment for the summit to produce sustainable results.
Prof. Diesen emphasises the discrepancy between European leaders and their populations, pointing out that polls show that 69 per cent of Ukrainians and a majority of Americans want an end to the war, yet leaders such as Merz and Emmanuel Macron continue to prioritise military support over diplomacy. Sachs goes further, describing European leaders as ‘incompetent,’ subservient to the United States, and lacking the strategic autonomy necessary to pursue peace independently of the United States.
The professors agree that if Trump were to publicly declare that NATO will not expand, acknowledge the role of the United States in destabilising Ukraine, and put normal relations between superpowers above proxy wars, these steps would be consistent with the wishes of the Ukrainian and American public and could pave the way for a genuine transformation of US-Russian relations. However, the Deep State, including the CIA and the military-industrial complex, would resist any attempt at de-escalation, and Trump’s history of yielding to such pressure inspires little confidence in success.
