US President Donald Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, in a summit that could shape not only the trajectory of the war in Ukraine, but also the future of European security.
However, the much-anticipated meeting proved largely underwhelming, and international commentators were left with little to parse beyond the leaders’ body language and the symbolism of the venue. Trump hailed the summit as a “10 out of 10,” and the White House called it “historic,” but statements released afterward showed that three hours of talks had produced no tangible outcomes.
In the run-up to the meeting, many feared that Ukraine might be sacrificed in exchange for US-Russia deals on territorial concessions. Those concerns prompted the EU to convene a meeting before the summit, pledging its support for Kyiv and affirming that no territorial changes could be imposed without Ukraine’s consent.
In the end, none of the rumored breakthroughs materialized. The summit yielded neither a ceasefire nor even a partial deal, and offered no road map for negotiations. Nor did it broaden the agenda in the way some media reports had suggested.
Putin’s silence before the summit suggested that his priority was the face-to-face encounter itself. He had no expectation of tangible outcomes. Rather, his aim was to sideline the EU and Ukraine by engaging directly with Trump and casting himself as an indispensable interlocutor.
What lessons does this hold for Taiwan?
First, Putin used the summit to chip away at his diplomatic isolation through a one-on-one meeting with the US president. He might have dangled minor concessions, such as endorsing Trump’s view that Ukraine would not have been invaded under his leadership. By holding the talks in Alaska, a venue chosen to underscore the idea of the US and Russia as “good neighbors,” Putin sought to counter Europe’s “interference” in Ukraine.
In taking the gamble of traveling to US soil — even as a US B-2 stealth bomber and fighter jets roared overhead — Putin broke through his pariah status. The optics were unmistakable: the US president rolling out the red carpet for a leader wanted internationally on charges of war crimes.
Putin sought to project US-Russia relations as equal to, if not more important than, Washington’s ties with Ukraine and the EU. In his view, any ceasefire in the Ukraine war would hinge on Russia’s terms, not on US economic incentives.
Asked by reporters if he would stop killing civilians, Putin responded with a cold smile — a gesture that evoked the ongoing war without end and demonstrated the futility of expecting a tiger to surrender its skin.
Trump, for his part, said that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had assured him China would not invade Taiwan while he remained in office.
If true, Taiwan must use this window to strengthen its own resilience. The nation needs to convince its neighbors that any threat to Taiwan would not only disrupt global chip supply chains, but also endanger regional economic security and maritime transport.
When US policy appeared uncertain, Ukraine was buoyed by European allies who rejected any trade of territory for security, thereby giving Washington greater leverage in its talks with Moscow. A “temporary” ceasefire would only embolden the aggressor to demand more.
Similarly, Taiwan cannot rely solely on the US for protection. It must reinforce its own defenses while cultivating support from neighbors and allies such as Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand. Only then can Taiwan alleviate its concerns about US-China summits.
Chang Meng-jen is chair of Fu Jen Catholic University’s Department of Italian Language and Culture and coordinator of the university’s diplomacy and international affairs program.
Translated by Fion Khan
Taiwan has lost Trump. Or so a former State Department official and lobbyist would have us believe. Writing for online outlet Domino Theory in an article titled “How Taiwan lost Trump,” Christian Whiton provides a litany of reasons that the William Lai (賴清德) and Donald Trump administrations have supposedly fallen out — and it’s all Lai’s fault. Although many of Whiton’s claims are misleading or ill-informed, the article is helpfully, if unintentionally, revealing of a key aspect of the MAGA worldview. Whiton complains of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s “inability to understand and relate to the New Right in America.” Many
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
Taiwan is to hold a referendum on Saturday next week to decide whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant, which was shut down in May after 40 years of service, should restart operations for as long as another 20 years. The referendum was proposed by the opposition Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and passed in the legislature with support from the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Its question reads: “Do you agree that the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should continue operations upon approval by the competent authority and confirmation that there are no safety concerns?” Supporters of the proposal argue that nuclear power
RSS