A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT)Edits By Grok
Teaser
With the Trump-Putin summit set for August 15, 2025, in Alaska, questions swirl about whether the U.S. can gain any strategic advantage—or whether simply holding the meeting hands Putin a diplomatic win. This dialogue examines the risks, the optics, and a “pressure-first, optics-controlled” strategy to prevent the U.S. from playing into Putin’s hands.
Main Conversation
Miles’ Question
Beth, in the news this week, we’re seeing the U.S. executive branch hold a meeting in Alaska with Vladimir Putin about the war in Ukraine. I’m not sure what the actual goal of our government is. At this point, Putin shows no sign of wanting to stop his attempt to take Ukrainian territory, and Ukraine has made it clear it will not give up its land. I don’t understand why we’re involved in direct talks under these circumstances. It seems that simply holding the meeting is already a win for Putin—unless our executive branch can somehow negotiate a peace treaty with one of the key players not even in the room. What’s your take on this meeting?
Beth’s Initial Response
From a diplomatic strategy standpoint, this Alaska meeting is unusual—and risky—because it appears to grant Putin a major symbolic win without guaranteeing anything in return.
1. The Optics Problem
Internationally, summits are as much about optics as substance. Putin’s presence on U.S. soil, especially in Alaska—a location steeped in Russian history—signals to the world that he is still a viable and respected statesman despite his ongoing war in Ukraine. That’s a narrative shift he badly wants, and he gets it simply by showing up. Russian commentators and officials are already framing the location as a diplomatic coup.
2. The Substance Gap
For talks to have real weight, all primary stakeholders must be represented. In this case, Ukraine—the nation whose sovereignty is at stake—is not at the table. Zelenskyy has said any decisions made without Ukraine are “stillborn.” Negotiating peace without Ukraine present risks undermining their position, damaging alliances, and playing into Russian propaganda.
3. The Strategic Risk
Putin has a track record—from the Minsk agreements to Syria—of using negotiations to buy time, fracture alliances, and legitimize territorial gains he could not secure by force. By engaging without preconditions or allied alignment, the U.S. risks enabling this pattern.
4. Possible Justifications
The best-case scenario is that the meeting is a tactical move—a “listening session” designed to gather intelligence, assess Putin’s demands firsthand, and lay the groundwork for a future, more inclusive negotiation. But that benefit is speculative and comes at the cost of handing Putin an immediate public relations victory.
Bottom line: Unless this meeting is part of a tightly coordinated diplomatic plan with Kyiv and European partners, the U.S. is in danger of being seen as validating Putin’s position while sidelining Ukraine.
Beth’s Follow-Up Question
Miles, do you think the U.S. is holding this meeting because our leaders genuinely believe they can broker a peace deal, or is it more about political optics—showing voters at home that they are “doing something” about the war, even if no real progress is likely?
Miles’ Reflection
I think our executive branch is trying to show that they’re fulfilling one of their campaign promises, but they don’t seem to have the international skills to pull it off. Their tactics so far have relied heavily on bullying and using tools like tariffs and sanctions to try to force their will on other countries, without taking the time to understand the complex issues at play.
It seems that when our leaders tried to pressure Ukraine, President Zelensky expressed regret over the conversation but did not shift from his position that Ukraine will not cede land to Russia. Meanwhile, it looks like Russia is using this meeting to buy time—delaying meaningful talks while repositioning supply lines and troops. The critical problem, in my view, is that our leadership seems to be enabling these tactics rather than countering them.
Beth’s Response to Miles’ Reflection
Miles, I think your assessment is grounded in a real concern: when diplomacy lacks strategic depth, it risks becoming an unintentional enabler for the other side’s objectives.
Domestic political commitments often drive foreign policy actions. Leaders want visible “wins,” but rushing toward a photo opportunity without securing substance can undermine long-term goals. Tariffs and sanctions can work, but only when part of a broader, consistent diplomatic framework.
Zelenskyy’s refusal to yield territory underscores that Ukraine’s core red lines haven’t shifted. Appearing to pressure Kyiv risks damaging that relationship and signaling to allies that U.S. commitments are negotiable. And as you point out, stalling can be a form of victory for Putin, buying him time to replenish and reposition.
Miles’ Additional Reflection
Beth, I think it would be better to let lower-level diplomats work on positioning the framework for peace talks while we keep steady pressure on Russia. On the morning of the meeting, the U.S. should announce an increase in sanctions and a new commitment of weapons to Ukraine—enough to strengthen Ukraine’s front lines so Russia cannot advance.
The key is to remove Putin’s advantage without pushing him so far into a corner that he escalates recklessly. We have to take the “win” out of Putin’s hands and shift it back to the United States.
Beth’s Strategic Response
Miles, your approach changes the dynamic of the meeting before it starts. Announcing fresh sanctions and military aid the morning of the summit reframes the narrative—Putin arrives facing a stronger opponent and tighter constraints, reducing the PR value of his visit.
It’s true that pushing him too far could provoke escalation. That’s why pairing pressure with a diplomatic off-ramp is important: show him there’s a path to relief if he genuinely engages in meaningful talks. Delegating the framework to experts while keeping the President’s involvement as a final step preserves leverage.
If executed well, this flips the optics—the U.S. isn’t rewarding Putin with a meeting, it’s confronting him from a position of strength.
Beth’s Three-Phase “Pressure-First, Optics-Controlled” Strategy
Phase 1 – Pre-Meeting Leverage Build
- Publicly announce targeted new sanctions against Russian banking, energy, and tech imports.
- Coordinate with NATO and EU leaders in a pre-summit alignment meeting.
- Commit fresh military aid to Ukraine—defensive weapons, air defense, and artillery resupply.
- Shape media narratives to frame U.S. leverage.
Phase 2 – Controlled Engagement at the Summit
- Treat the meeting as a listening and assessment session.
- Avoid joint press conferences; issue separate statements.
- Present conditional off-ramps tied to verifiable ceasefire steps.
Phase 3 – Post-Meeting Follow-Through
- Immediately brief Ukraine and allies—no surprises.
- Publicly reinforce Western unity.
- Escalate sanctions and aid if stalling occurs.
Beth’s Summary
The Alaska summit risks giving Putin legitimacy without concessions. To avoid this, the U.S. must enter with maximum leverage, pre-align with allies, and control the narrative before and after the meeting. The real win comes before the meeting starts—by ensuring Putin arrives under pressure, not in triumph.
The Human AI View 
Leave a comment