What the summit means for Trump, Putin and Ukraine

President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin left Alaska without concluding an agreement for a cease-fire in Ukraine.

After a meeting of almost three hours, the leaders made a joint media statement before leaving without answering questions.

Three BBC correspondents who are anchorage for the summit evaluate what it means for American and Russian leaders as well as what happens in the war in Ukraine.

By the correspondent of North America Anthony Zurcher

“There is no agreement before there was an agreement,” said Donald Trump at the start of his post-commet remarks here in Anchorage.

It was a way of rtering to concede that after several hours of talks, there is no agreement. No ceasefire. Nothing tangible to report.

The president said that he and Vladimir Putin made “great progress”, but with little details on what it could be, this is left to the imagination of the world.

“We did not get there,” he said later, before leaving the play without responding to the hundreds of journalists gathered.

Trump has traveled a long way to produce such vague statements, even if American European allies and Ukrainian officials could be relieved that he did not offer unilateral concessions or agreements that could have undermined future negotiations.

For the man who likes to boast as a peacemaker and a job, it seems that Trump leaves Alaska without any of the two.

There is also no indication that an future summit which includes the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky is to come, notwithstanding the “next time in Moscow” from Putin.

While Trump had less at stake during these negotiations than Ukraine or Russia, it will always put a breach in its national and international prestige after the previous promises that this meeting had only 25% of failure.

In addition, the president had to suffer from the apparent unworthiness to be silent while Putin began the press conference – which was not with in -depth opening remarks. It was a marked difference that the normal routine of the oval office, when the American president generally holds the court while his foreign counterpart looks without comment.

While Alaska is an American territory, Putin seemed more in him in what his officials liked to note was formerly “Russian America” before its sale of the 19th century in the United States. This can eat to the American president in the coming days, as is the press cover which will present this summit as a flop.

The big question now – a journalist could not ask himself on Friday – is whether Trump will decide to impose his new very threatened sanctions on Russia as a punishment.

The president partly said that within the friendly limits of an interview with Fox News before flying off, saying that he would consider such a decision “perhaps in two weeks, three weeks”. But since the president has promised “serious consequences” if Russia has not turned to a cease-fire, such a non-specific answer can arouse more questions than it answers.

By Steve Rosenberg, editor of Russia

When is a “press conference” a press conference?

When there are no questions.

There was a palpable surprise in the room when the presidents Putin and Trump left the podium as soon as they had made their statements – without answering any questions.

Members of the Russian delegation also left the play quickly without answering any questions that journalists shouted.

Clear signs that, with regard to the war in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump always have a major difference in opinion.

Donald Trump put pressure on a Russian ceasefire. Vladimir Putin did not give it to him.

There was a very different atmosphere earlier during the day. President Trump had deployed the red carpet for Vladimir Putin, treating the chief of the Kremlin as an honored guest.

The Russian president had his moment under geopolitical spotlights, sharing the scene with the most powerful country’s head in the world.

But how will Trump react to what happened? He has still failed to persuade Putin to end the Russian war in Ukraine.

Previously, he had threatened a more difficult approach to Russia, with ultimatums, deadlines and warnings of more sanctions if Moscow was unaware of a cease-fire.

He did not follow.

Is it going?

By Vitaliy Shevchenko, editor -in -chief of Russia BBC Monitoring

What has just happened in anchorage may seem anti-climatic for many, but in kyiv, there will be relief sighs that no “agreement” has been announced which would cost a Ukrainian territory.

The inhabitants of Ukraine will also know that all their main agreements with Russia have been broken, so even if we had been announced here in Anchorage, they would have been skeptical.

The Ukrainians will however be alarmed that in appearance jointly in front of the media, Vladimir Putin still spoke of the “deep causes” of the conflict and said that only their withdrawal would lead to lasting peace.

Translated from the Kremlin, this means that it is always determined to pursue the initial objective of its “special military operation” – which is to dismantle Ukraine as an independent state. Three and a half years of Western efforts have failed to make him change his mind, and this now includes the top of Alaska.

The uncertainty that persists after the meeting is also concerned. What happens next? Will Russia attacks continue tirelessly?

The last months have experienced a succession of Western deadlines that have come without consequences and threats that have never been made. Ukrainians see this as an invitation to Putin to continue his attacks. They can see the apparent lack of progress reached anchorage under the same day.