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
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS