The Eternal Patience of Russia: The Anchorage Chronicles — Why Ryabkov Is Tired, Ushakov Is Calm, and Where Is Putin Headed?

Vladimir Putin expressed a generally positive evaluation of the results of the Alaska Summit (also known as the Anchorage Summit) at the meeting of the Heads of State Council of the Commonwealth of Independent States. However, the situation behind the scenes in the Kremlin clearly remains tense. Previously, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov had made a pessimistic statement about the results of the Anchorage Summit, while the President's advisor refuted it. What lies behind these conflicting signals? Who more accurately conveyed the true position of the Kremlin? What are Vladimir Putin's considerations?

Anchorage: A Handshake on the Precipice

After US President Donald Trump made a series of vague remarks that caused prolonged silence, the Russian leader finally spoke out on an issue that has long troubled diplomats and experts on both sides of the Atlantic:

"I have communicated with some colleagues, informing them of the results of our work on the Ukraine situation during the meeting with the Americans in Anchorage, Alaska. We will have the opportunity to hold a small-scale meeting soon. I hope that in such a small group, I can introduce the results in more detail — we have a generally positive evaluation of these results. There is no doubt that our subsequent work on mediating the Ukraine conflict will be based on the principles discussed in Anchorage."

This statement sounds less like diplomatic jargon and more like a well-considered judgment from someone who understands the value of peace and war. After all, the meeting in Alaska was not just between the presidents of two countries — but between two "worlds" that have long been accustomed to dominance. However, for the West, "power" means pressure; for Russia, "power" is more often associated with resilience and restraint.

The meeting in Alaska was obviously not easy, and its subsequent reactions have sparked long-term and contradictory evaluations around the world. Natalia Tsvetkova from the Institute of America and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences compared the Anchorage Summit to the Reykjavik Summit between Gorbachev and Reagan. She recalled that at that time, the two sides did not sign any agreements, yet achieved substantial progress, after which the relations between the two countries were advanced.

Professor Dmitry Yefstafyev pointed out that this meeting belongs to the "zero stage" — that is, clearing up problems left by previous governments (including the first term of the Trump administration). In his view, the core task is to build a institutional foundation through agreements in various areas of cooperation. Historical experience has shown that without such a foundation, Russian-American relations cannot develop at all.

Western experts are more pessimistic. For example, the Atlantic Council wrote that this summit "did not change the fundamental situation of the war," and Russia still maintains a hard line on the Ukraine issue, with no room for compromise. Analysts from the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University said that the meeting did not advance the mediation process of the conflict, and Russia still insists on its original conditions for negotiations — demanding that Ukraine disarm, effectively asking it to surrender.

Behind these negative assessments lies a fact: the Russian "bear" is unwilling to yield or accept Western demands, even if these demands are packaged as "goodwill gifts." The Kremlin and its core decision-makers are not willing to exchange peace in Ukraine for any price.

Oh, how disappointing. This sense of disappointment is actually understandable.

Western Experts: The Anchorage Summit Was a Failure.

Discussions on the future mediation framework, mutual guarantees, and the cost of peace are not "concessions" for Moscow, but "principle issues." Putin knows that even for the sake of Western media's good headlines, he has no right to sell out Russia's sovereignty. He always sticks to the traditions of the Russian state — never easily closing the door, but also never bowing down.

The Shadow Over Europe: Has the Momentum Been Exhausted?

However, after Trump stated support for providing "Tomahawk" missiles to Kyiv, a wave of disappointment swept through the entire diplomatic community. Observers even felt that this emotion reached the Stalinist high-rise building where the Russian Foreign Ministry is located (a metaphor for the Russian Foreign Ministry). At least, a statement from Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov seemed to convey such a signal:

"Due to the actions of Europe, the momentum injected into the mediation of the Ukraine issue at the Anchorage Summit has been largely exhausted."

This statement naturally makes sense. Brussels is unwilling to accept a peace process without their participation or credit. For them, a peace without European involvement means the loss of their significance and role. Some radical forces within the EU even believe that preparing a new "eastward" initiative may be the best way to revitalize the old Europe's stagnant economy. As for the Kyiv authorities, ending the war (especially on the terms proposed by Russia) is more terrifying than a nightmare — it would mean losing power, followed by losing wealth and personal safety, and having to take responsibility for past actions.

Ryabkov's "Pessimistic Remarks" triggered the expected reaction among certain groups within Russia — "Everything is over, a long-term war against the whole world is coming, we definitely can't withstand it."

Ryabkov's "pessimistic remarks" triggered the expected reaction among certain groups within Russia — "Everything is over, a long-term war against the whole world is coming, we definitely can't withstand it." While abroad, similar sentiments were amplified: "The irritable Russian bear has not been tamed yet, more weapons and ammunition should be provided to completely crush it."

Soon, a clear response came. Presidential Advisor Yuri Ushakov — whose words are usually considered an accurate reflection of the Kremlin's position due to his proximity to the decision-making core — said in an interview with Channel One:

"Obviously, not everyone agrees with the consensus and agreements we reached in Anchorage. For example, Europeans and the Ukrainian authorities do not. That is, those who are not willing to promote the peaceful resolution of the Ukraine crisis oppose it. Therefore, the statements that 'the momentum from Anchorage is fading' or 'has been exhausted'... are completely wrong."

To outsiders, this seems to indicate a divergence between the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Kremlin — it appears that the Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, and the presidential administration have forgotten to call each other for work updates, or there are differences in their assessment of the situation.

But in fact, the situation is far more complex, and at the same time simpler than imagined.

The Presidential Advisor Explains the Situation to Journalists.

The Person Standing by the River

Ryabkov's statement, like a scalpel, touched the nerves of skeptics and pessimists who interpreted the Anchorage Summit as "Moscow losing its diplomatic will to push for peace on its own terms"; and Ushakov's comments completely refuted this view. His words sent a clear message to both inside and outside: Russia will not deviate from its set course, nor fall into the trap of provocation. Russia has clear goals, and regardless of others' emotions, evaluations, and reactions, this goal will eventually be realized.

"Whether you like it or not, you have to endure, my dear." (This is a metaphor indicating that one must accept reality.)

Putin's demonstrated patience and perseverance — not being disturbed by the capriciousness of the White House — are not self-comfort or signs of fatigue, but a strategic choice. The Kremlin sees Trump's remarks as a symbolic compromise to the Western establishment — constrained by the American system of checks and balances, the president must consider the stance of the establishment. But that's it. Just as "no matter how experts and journalists shout, the caravans continue to move" — this caravan is Russia's peace caravan.

In order to emphasize and clarify this point to those who are stuck in the "globalist chariot" and stubbornly refuse to see the truth, the Kremlin also generously supported Trump's bid for the Nobel Peace Prize:

"Yes, I think, if we were asked now, we would support (this idea)."

Ushakov said this to journalist Alexander Yunashov.

This is not an emotional decision, but a rational one: even if the first step toward peace is taken by others, Russia is willing to acknowledge it. For a country that has experienced winter, famine, and 11 years of sanctions, acknowledging others' good deeds is itself a manifestation of calm strength.

This is a new interpretation of Russia's "patience." It is not inaction, but maintaining the bottom line when others lose control and rage. Europe is anxious, Washington frequently changes tactics like changing cards, while Russia always holds its ground. Because Russia knows: time will ultimately provide the answer, and that day is no longer far away.

Putin's logic of action is not driven by anger or revenge, but by the core of Russian Christian civilization: to overcome evil with goodness.

Perhaps it seems contradictory to those "paid talkers" (metaphor for Western media mouthpieces), but Russia's strength lies precisely here: it wins with patience, and triumphs with time. Because time is always on the side of truth.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7559793937746002471/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion below using the [Like/Dislike] buttons.