Security experts are expressing concern that China and the broader international community are keenly observing the interactions between the US President and Russian President Vladimir Putin following their meeting in Alaska on Friday.
Prior to the discussions, the White House stated the meeting was intended as a “listening exercise,” and Trump affirmed he would not pursue any deals or concessions during his remarks.
However, security specialists have cautioned that this meeting will carry implications far beyond its immediate scope.
“Given China’s consistent role as a supporter and enabler of Russia, they are naturally observing the discussions concerning Ukraine with great attention,” Lithuanian Defense Minister Dovilė Šakalienė conveyed to a digital news outlet during her visit to Washington, D.C., this week.
“Any concession would undoubtedly serve as an impetus for the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to pursue a hostile course in the Indo-Pacific, as the perceived likelihood of severe repercussions would be considerably reduced.”
Trump stated his intention to contact his European and the Ukrainian President counterparts immediately following the Anchorage talks, expressing his hope that the subsequent step would involve an in-person meeting between the Ukrainian President and Putin, potentially alongside Trump and other European leaders.
Nevertheless, speculation persists regarding whether the president will seek to establish his own agreements, specifically in the critical minerals sector, as Trump aims to counteract Chinese competition.
On Thursday, Trump declined to answer inquiries about whether he plans to pursue a critical minerals deal with Putin, instead telling reporters, “We’re going to see what happens with that meeting.”
However, the appearance of Trump entering a business arrangement with Russia while Putin continues his destructive objectives in Ukraine might be interpreted as bolstering Moscow’s financial resources and could further indicate to the Chinese President that Trump prioritizes “deals over deterrence,” an East Asian geopolitical strategy expert cautioned.
“Beijing will interpret any accommodating agreement as expanding their leeway for gray-zone tactics against Taiwan, which could undermine allied confidence in perceived U.S. red lines,” Craig Singleton, China Program senior director and senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, stated in a communication to a digital news outlet.
“China will leverage that uncertainty, propagating a ‘deals-over-deterrence’ narrative and testing coordination deficiencies from Tokyo and Seoul to Manila.
“Should Washington be perceived as ‘abandoning’ Ukraine, Beijing will draw a clear conclusion: Coercion is effective, and its expenses are manageable,” Singleton further noted. “Consequently, Beijing might escalate military incursions near Taiwan and intensify gray-zone pressure to ascertain how much stability Washington is willing to exchange for quietude.”
Nonetheless, another factor concerning security experts about the meetings is Zelenskyy’s absence.
Although the meeting was ostensibly initiated by Putin, who has consistently declined to meet with Zelenskyy despite the Ukrainian president’s requests, Zelenskyy’s non-attendance while discussing a conflict occurring on his own nation’s territory could be highly significant.
“From Beijing’s viewpoint, excluding Zelenskyy broadens the path for a face-saving ceasefire that solidifies Russia’s territorial achievements, implicitly acknowledging that major powers can alter borders by force,” Singleton observed. “Beijing will subtly embrace this and register that Washington considered settlement discussions without Kyiv, establishing a precedent it will utilize for Asia.”
Ultimately, he contended, “If aggression yields dividends in Europe, then deterrence diminishes in Asia.”
“For Beijing, the Alaska meeting itself delivers the message. Major powers negotiating over the destinies of smaller states normalizes the global order that Chinese leader Xi Jinping favors,” Singleton concluded.