Møtet i Anchorage, Alaska...

Etter å sett noen av overskriftene og hvordan det hele fremstilles i norske aviser har jeg lyst til å presentere hvordan russiske medier formidler møtet - respektfult til begge presidenter, minimalt med store overskrifter og hvor flere har satt seg inn i vestlige mediers formidling:

https://www.rt.com/russia/623068-russian-reactions-to-putin-trump-talks/

Her kommer det noen poeng fra dette sammendraget jeg har funnet i Russia Today over pressen og samfunnsviteres formidling av møtet. Og hvor langt det europeiske og det russiske er fra det norske dramaet (SUKKKHHHH....)

"Vladimir Kornilov, political analyst: “A Historic Handshake in Alaska” – that was the front-page headline splashed across many European newspapers this morning. To be fair, most of those editions went to press while the summit was still underway, which means their coverage lacked any meaningful analysis. As a result, much of what was published focused on optics – body language, symbolic gestures, red carpets, and so on.

One theme dominates the Western analysis: Russia got what it wanted out of the Alaska summit. That’s the consensus across a wide spectrum of commentators and anchors. Many of them didn’t bother to hide their frustration that they weren’t allowed to ask a single question during the much-anticipated joint press conference between the US and Russian leaders."

"Dmitry Novikov, associate professor at the Higher School of Economics: From the standpoint of Russian interests, the Anchorage summit can be seen as a relative success for Moscow. Two key aspects stand out.

Strategically, both sides came out ahead – if only because the existence of meaningful communication between nuclear superpowers is a net positive by definition. Judging by the signals out of Washington, the Trump administration seems to share that view.

The summit also confirmed something I’ve noted before: Trump is genuinely interested in resetting relations with Moscow. He sees negotiations with Russia as a cheaper, more efficient way to achieve his strategic goals in Europe. That’s why he’s open to serious dialogue – even if it doesn’t produce immediate media wins or flashy breakthroughs."

"Valentin Bogdanov, VGTRK New York bureau chief: “From the very first frames of the broadcast from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, one thing was clear: isolation had failed. The red carpet, the honor guard flanked by fighter jets, the handshake, the smiles – it all looked far more like Russia’s return to the world stage than another attempt to shove it off.”

“Russian America” played host to a summit of neighbors – one neighbor applauding the other. On the runway, the two presidential planes were parked as close together as the Diomede Islands in the Bering Strait. The symbolism of convergence wasn’t lost – geographically or diplomatically.

Meanwhile, body language experts wasted no time analyzing the subtle choreography from the moment the two presidents appeared on camera – from eye contact to the timing of their handshake. Putin and Trump quickly settled into a shared rhythm. Of course, there will now be a concerted effort – by the usual suspects – to knock them out of sync.

But inside the White House, officials are already discussing a follow-up meeting. According to their thinking, it could be the breakthrough needed to untangle the Ukraine knot. The American end of that knot, it seems, has already started to loosen."

"Elena Panina, Director of the Institute for International Political and Economic Strategies: The three-hour meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson wasn’t just a diplomatic encounter – it was arguably the defining political event of 2025.

And politeness, notably, was in abundant supply – something all observers picked up on. Compared to Trump’s meetings over the past six months, this was a dramatic shift. No shouting matches such as with Zelensky, no mocking jabs like those aimed at German Chancellor Merz, and none of the alpha posturing he’s shown with the likes of Ursula von der Leyen or Cyril Ramaphosa. Instead, the tone was marked by deliberate courtesy and mutual respect, with both leaders carefully sidestepping flashpoints.

The opening move has been made. The real question now is whether Trump can push through the internal and external constraints he faces – so that this debut in Alaska evolves into a full-fledged game."

"Timofey Bordachev, professor at the Higher School of Economics: I personally never expected the summit to resolve the war in Ukraine. The conflict is simply the core of a much broader crisis – one that runs through the entire architecture of European security.

What struck me as most important was the spirit of the meeting itself. After 35 years of accumulated tension, the US-Russia confrontation is – at least under Donald Trump – being redirected into a more civilized framework. Each side still operates under its own set of constraints and domestic limitations. But critically, the US has now shelved the idea of pursuing Russia’s “strategic defeat” or attempting to isolate it completely. That shift is profound. Framing the conflict in such absolute, existential terms had made it unsolvable – it took it out of the realm of international relations toward something more akin to a crusade.

This change signals the emergence of a new reality: the conflict remains, and its military-technical phase will likely continue for now. But it’s no longer treated as a moral or existential struggle – it has become a normal, if deeply entrenched, dispute in the history of great power politics. And that makes it solvable."

"Ilya Kramnik, military analyst, expert at the Russian International Affairs Council: A ready-made peace deal is, unfortunately, out of reach right now – largely due to divisions within the West itself.

What comes next is the hardest part. No matter how productive the talks between the Russian and American presidents may have been, peace in Ukraine will require the involvement of European Union countries. That currently seems almost unthinkable, given the public positions of both the EU as a bloc and several key member states individually.

At the same time, it’s clear that the US and Russia have more to discuss beyond the war in Ukraine. Both presidents acknowledged mutual interests across a range of areas, and the existence of ongoing bilateral contacts reinforces that.

So, yes, I expected the two sides to come to some level of understanding – including on issues unrelated to the ongoing conflict. As for ending the war itself, that will require a step-by-step process.

That’s essentially what happened in Anchorage. Now we wait to see how Europe responds – and, of course, what form a draft peace framework might eventually take."

"Sergey Poletaev, political commentator: The most likely outcome was exactly what we got: an agreement to keep talking.

There are two main problems. First, Trump doesn’t see himself as a party to the conflict and wants to remain above the fray. Putin – rightly, in my view – sees it differently. He believes, and continues to insist, that only Trump can make the kind of decisive choices needed to end the war. If some movement on that front occurred in Anchorage, then real progress might now be possible."

"Ivan Timofeev, program director of the Valdai Club:

I believe both leaders walked away with everything they reasonably could have hoped for. Russia stood firm on its core positions but remained engaged in dialogue. The US, for its part, moved a step closer to the kind of peace it wants – one that lets it stop pouring resources into a geopolitical asset that’s yielding no meaningful political return. In that sense, both sides can count the meeting as a win."

Dette er bare utdrag av artikkelen som jeg la inn link til i begynnelsen av innlegget i dag, alt lest idag 17.8.2025. Russia Today er en virkelig interessant avis, fordi den gir oss de nyhetene de ikke fokuserer på i særlig grad i Norge, men er viktige i EU! Som uttalelser fra flere EU-land om deres ståsted i forhold til Russland og deres begrunnelser. Å avfeie motstemmene i EU fordi de ikke jatter med Jonas og Jens, Erna og Sylvi er rett og slett dumt! At norske aviser gjør denne tabben er rett og slett utilgivelig! Norske aviser er rett og slett dårlige - med kanskje et par hederlige unntak, som Morgenavisen, Finansavisen og på en heldig dag VG og Dagbladet. Dagsavisen er alltid for sent ute her i nord til at jeg kjøper den. Dessverre. For det er faktisk en meget bra avis!

Håper dere har en god sønndag! Hilsener fra Nordlandet.