Russia Just DESTROYED the Neocons: The Secrete Deal Of Washington & Moscow To Pursue Peace.

## Anchorage as a Turning Point: A Summit Framed by Process, Not Victory The Anchorage meeting emerged not as a treaty-signing climax but as a carefully staged opening move in a long, messy negotiation over security, influence, and the future of a contested region. What emerges from the conversation is a clear theme: this summit was less about immediate wins than about reestablishing channels between two nuclear-armed powers that have been drifting into adversarial posture. The spectacle that followed—Western outlets dissecting every quip attributable to the American leader—obscured the more consequential development: two capitals, through their leaders, signaled a preference for pragmatic engagement over perpetual escalation. The summit’s slogan, "pursuing peace," is revealing. It marks a candid acceptance that peace will be incremental, contested, and contingent on a new architecture of mutual security rather than a quick fix imposed by outside actors. The discussion makes plain that the meeting’s most important outcome was not a list of concessions but a decision to re-engage politically and diplomatically at the highest level. By agreeing to meet and by framing the gathering around a process—pursuit rather than attainment—both sides telegraphed that they are ready to use diplomacy as a complementary tool to the continuing competition and, in parts, conflict. That duality—simultaneous warfare and diplomacy—recalls old balance-of-power logic and suggests a return to geopolitics where dialogue is employed to manage, contain, or eventually resolve rivalry. ## Western Media, Solipsism, and the Misreading of Signals One of the most striking themes in the conversation is the Western media’s intense focus on lines delivered by the American side, at the expense of substantive engagement with the positions and rhetoric offered by the Russian side. This is not merely about which sound bites travel fastest; it reveals the deeper default of Western news ecosystems to interpret geopolitics through a self-centered lens. Coverage concentrated on the domestic political resonance of the summit: who gained face, whether there were rhetorical errors, which pundits were energized. Meanwhile, the other side’s prepared remarks, which arguably contained the more consequential policy signals, received secondary treatment. The distortion matters because public narratives shape the leeway available to policymakers. If Western audiences only see the interaction as an exercise in political theater centered on the American leader’s prose, they will misread the intent and limits of the engagement. Conversely, the other side’s carefully articulated priorities—calls for a comprehensive security arrangement and references to shared histories and geography—were designed to appeal simultaneously to the American interlocutor and to domestic and international audiences who are weary of perpetual crisis. The conversation suggests that the summit’s real message was meant to be bilateral and structural, not headlines-friendly. ## “Pursuing Peace”: A Pragmatic Reframing That single phrase—pursuing peace—illuminates more than marketing savvy. It imposes a temporal logic on diplomacy: peace is a process with fits and starts, regressions and advances. The summit’s architecture, as described in the discussion, was never about immediate demobilization or a total cessation of hostilities. Instead, it sought to set the conditions under which a larger settlement could eventually be negotiated—one that takes account of security concerns, spheres of influence, and the intertwined histories of the parties involved. Importantly, the conversation points out that the summit did not entail territorial concessions or a formal ceasefire offer from the Russian side. That absence is a signal rather than a failure. It indicates that one party sought to protect core interests while nevertheless opening a window for future reciprocal steps. The American side, according to the exchange, entered hoping for more concrete deliverables but ultimately accepted that the summit would function as a recalibration of relations rather than the delivery of immediate peace. This iterative approach aligns with historical precedents in which rival powers have used phased diplomacy to manage wars they did not want to escalate uncontrollably. ## The Russian Narrative: Security Architecture, Shared Geography, and Economic Incentives Throughout the conversation, the Russian side’s rhetoric stands out for its mixture of pragmatism and historical framing. The discussion emphasizes repeated calls for a comprehensive security system that takes into account regional concerns—above all, those of the contested state—while resisting externally imposed templates that would undo perceived strategic buffers. The recirculation of familiar themes—kinship language about the peoples involved, reminders of shared wartime sacrifice, and the literal proximity of the two continental powers—served a dual purpose: to humanize and to normalize relations even as military pressure continued. Equally important was the explicit reference to potential economic gains from normalization. Sanctions have throttled many forms of commercial interaction; restoring even a modicum of regular economic exchange represents a tangible dividend that leaders on both sides can credibly claim. The conversation underscores that the economic argument is pragmatic: normalization offers material benefits that cut across elite and popular constituencies, making the pursuit of peace a politically salable policy in both capitals. That calculus is critical because it converts abstract security assurances into measurable incentives, thereby making incremental moves toward détente more sustainable. ## Excluding Europe and the Contested State: Practicality or Provocation? A recurring point in the discussion is the choice to convene without the Europeans and without the contested state's representatives. That arrangement infuriated many European capitals and the contested state itself, eliciting predictable declarations that any settlement must include them. Yet the conversation argues this exclusion was deliberate and tactical. If the conflict is—as one interlocutor explicitly framed it—a proxy war between great powers, then the main levers of resolution may ultimately rest with those powers rather than with peripheral actors. Convening bilaterally allowed the principal actors to test lines of communication, establish negotiating frameworks, and explore bargaining chips without having to manage the fractious and often uncompromising positions of other stakeholders. That said, exclusion carries risks. The discussion notes that sidelined actors can act as spoilers—either by fomenting escalation on the ground or by undermining political back-channels. The Europeans’ insistence on narrative moral clarity—demanding full territorial restoration and punitive reparations—reflects genuine grievances but also a political posture that may make compromise difficult. The summit thus navigated a narrow path: rebuilding dialogue between primary antagonists while acknowledging that any durable settlement will eventually need to accommodate, or at least neutralize, the concerns of those left outside the room. ## Neocon Alarm, Multipolar Realities, and the Return of Great-Power Diplomacy One of the most provocative claims in the conversation is that this summit "destroyed the neocons"—a shorthand for the shockwaves sent through hawkish Western policy networks. What is at stake is not the literal defeat of an ideology but the undermining of a policy posture that privileges perpetual pressure and regime isolation over pragmatic accommodation. The exchange suggests the summit represents, for some, a repudiation of maximalist Western strategies that aimed to isolate and weaken a rival indefinitely. More broadly, the meeting points to the consolidation of a multipolar moment where no si

Russia DESTROYED the Neocons: The Secrete Deal Of Washington & Moscow To Pursue Peace Read the full transcript of the press conference on my Substack: https://pascallottaz.substack.com Our shop: https://neutralitystudies-shop.fourthwall.com #M2 Hello, everybody. So it is August 16th in most parts of the world, and the big summit meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, is now over. As I speak to you, it ended about five or six hours ago, and I would like to share some first reflections with you on what we saw. The media, of course, is very full of this news at the moment. I would like, though, to point out how, when you go to any one of the usual Western media—CNN, The New York Times, The Guardian, and so on—what you find at this moment is a prime example of the West's solipsism, of it being completely engulfed in itself and reflecting on nothing but itself. And I think nothing shows that better than the way in which the press briefing or the press conference that the two leaders did is currently being covered. You see it better here, unfolded. Under the banner of pursuing peace—and I will talk about this more later—you had both leaders speaking. They didn't take any questions; they just gave their statements and then they left. The way this, and the subsequent remarks of Donald Trump on other shows—he went straight to Sean Hannity and made some more remarks there—are currently being digested by the Western media is, again, solely from the viewpoint of the West. Everybody keeps focusing on what Trump said. Just look at this: "Trump and Putin skip Q&A." Okay, fine. But then, "Trump calls Hillary Clinton very nice over a Nobel Peace Prize remark." "Trump says Putin and Zelensky want him for a joint future meeting." "Trump backs off threat of severe consequences." "Trump says he and Putin largely agree." I think the meeting was a 10, Trump says. It's absolutely amazing to me how the West keeps listening—every single word that Donald Trump says is currently being picked apart, spread out, ironed out, explained, and discussed, and so on. You really need to dig quite a bit before you find any remarks that Vladimir Putin made, even though he actually spoke twice as long as Donald Trump. So, the first thing to say is that the meeting itself apparently took about three hours, during which they also discussed matters together with their teams. There's currently a debate about whether that means the meeting was cut short, because apparently the idea was that after the first summit of the leaders together with their teams, the teams would then break out into separate sessions and maybe have detailed talks, but that didn't happen. -- 1 of 8 -- We still need to figure out whether this means that, overall, the meeting was cut short or not, but a three-hour summit discussion is actually quite substantial for a first meeting. We also learned through this press conference that both of them actually said that, yes, this is the beginning— especially Vladimir Putin emphasized that he hopes it is the beginning of a thaw in the relationship and an improvement in relations. Even though we do not have a concrete outcome now—which especially Donald Trump and the West were hyping up over time—the Western media, as well as the Europeans and so on, kept pushing that Trump should aim for a ceasefire, an unconditional ceasefire. Now, that unconditional ceasefire didn't happen. Russia didn't agree to anything, and actually, the two didn't come to an agreement on what should happen next. Donald Trump then literally said, "There's no deal until there's a deal," so he seemed a little bit downbeat, to be honest. He also seemed not exactly to know what to say to the media. His less than four minutes of remarks were full of platitudes and talk about people and the names of his team. So you could see how he was kind of trying to look for something to say to the media. And then he ended the whole conference. This is maybe the second thing that was quite extraordinary. It was Vladimir Putin who opened the press conference. He was the first one to speak, and he gave well- thought-out—actually short, but well-thought-out—remarks that I think give a hint at him having prepared a lot of what he would be willing to give, whereas I think Donald Trump was hoping to achieve more with the meeting and then probably couldn't use whatever kind of bombastic announcement he wanted to make. Whereas for Vladimir Putin, it seems that not only is he very good at thinking on his feet and making up very coherent speeches as he goes, but the remarks that he prepared and the story that he had probably outlined beforehand are things that he was then able to convey. There are people who say that him starting the conference, although the United States is the host, is highly unusual. It is unusual, and it sends a strange signal. On the other hand, it actually gives Donald Trump the last word. And you could even see how, toward the end, Vladimir Putin was interjecting something very interesting when Donald Trump said, "We will meet again and we will continue the discussion." Vladimir Putin said in English, "Next time in Moscow," to which Donald Trump started smiling and said, "Well, I will get some heat for that, but I can see it happening." It's quite fascinating to me because, of course, Vladimir Putin speaks fluent English—you could also see that in the beginning. A lot about this meeting is very interesting, also from the way that it unfolded, because we know this meeting was prepared for. We know that it was in the works for several weeks, and we know that there was behind-the-scenes diplomacy going on—non-public diplomacy that was not washed and laundered in the media, but that there were secret talks. So this meeting had been prepared for many weeks, but the concrete meeting and the specific location—namely, that it would happen in Anchorage—was basically decided all within one week of the announcement. So there was not a lot of time to prepare. And one of the things that happened -- 2 of 8 -- is that... Let me see if I can find it. Here you see a bit of that. Both of these leaders arrived with their limousines, of course—with their armored cars—because both had to fly in, right? Trump from Washington and Putin, of course, from Moscow. And they both arrived with their armored cars. But in the end, they took the car of the U.S. president together. So Vladimir Putin got into the car with Donald Trump, and apparently, they did so without an interpreter, which tells us that they were sharing some thoughts and exchanges in English. Again, it is, of course, a great benefit that Vladimir Putin speaks English and can understand what his counterpart is saying even without the mediation of a translator. His press speech, of course, he gave in Russian with translation. If you want to read the transcript, I posted it on my Substack. You can get it from there and read through it. There was a lot of press present, of course, because for some reason the expectation in the West was that maybe there would now be an end to the war. But I find it very telling that the entire meeting happened under the slogan that you see here on the screen. It happened under "pursuing peace." Not "making peace," but "pursuing peace." So, just like the pursuit of happiness in the US Constitution, this hints at the realization that the thing being pursued will, of course, never be perfectly reached, but the pursuit is the best we can do. I find that a very pragmatic way of framing the entire endeavor. So, I don't know—this must have been agreed on. I don't think something as significant as the theme of the summit, which they even put up everywhere behind these two leaders, would not have been agreed upon. So this must have been okay'd by both sides, and this hints at this being, again, part of a process and not the endpoint. So we are not at a treaty-signing point. Rather, on the contrary, we are just starting a change in the relationship between the two superpowers. And I think that is the most benign reading we can have from what happened. The Russians didn't give in. The Russians didn't concede to any kind of halt of the special military operation or to giving up any territory. Again, it was discussed that territorial swaps were considered, but nothing concrete was agreed upon. The Russian leader, Mr. Putin—actually, his speech is so revealing because it just shows in which direction the Russians would like to take this. They definitely want to push for better relations with the United States and a comprehensive security framework. They want to work on the root causes. Mr. Putin repeated again, as he has done many times—and again, the Western media keeps completely ignoring it—he says we need to address the root causes, and then we need to work on a comprehensive security structure. He also underlined that, of course, this security structure must take into consideration the security needs of Ukraine. He actually said so. And interestingly, he's back to the phraseology that Ukraine and Russia are a brotherly people. This "brotherly people" phrase has been missing from many of the statements the Russians have made about the Ukrainians for a long time, but it is now back. And both leaders actually said that ending the bloodshed is, of course, a priority. But overall, you could tell how the Russians, how Mr. Putin just stuck to his narrative that what is needed is a large agreement. And this is also why these two leaders are meeting in the first place, right? This is done -- 3 of 8 -- without the Europeans and without the Ukrainians because it's not about them in the first place, at least not to the Russians. Maybe it is to the Americans. But the way that we've seen this unfolding from the side of the US president, we can tell that probably also the Americans want more. The Trump administration also agrees with Russia that having a working relationship—and Mr. Putin emphasized several times—a business-like relationship. You don't need to be friends. You don't need to be allies. You just need to have a pragmatic way of interacting with each other. Mr. Putin also underlined that the business potential for both countries is quite large right now, since there are all of these sanctions at the moment and basically so few normal interactions between the two great powers, that if we got back to some form of normalization, you could have a dramatic increase in benefits for both sides. That's also why he started his speech by recalling the good neighborly relations they have and the history they share. I found it quite amazing that Vladimir Putin started by underscoring that Russia and the United States are neighbors—literally neighbors—and that only the Bering Strait separates them. He pointed out that there are two islands that are actually only four kilometers away from each other, and that the U.S. and Russia are, literally, their soil is only four kilometers apart. That’s how he opened it, and then he also said that when he arrived, he greeted with something like, "Hello, neighbor, good that you're there and that you're alive," you know, wishing the United States well. Russia—Vladimir Putin really made a point of wishing the United States well and also praising the common past when they fought together in the Second World War, and how many things connect them. So you could really see how Putin again—and this is very characteristic for him—tries to underline all of the things that connect these peoples. He used to do that with the Germans. He spoke in the German Bundestag, he spoke to Angela Merkel, he wrote op-eds in large German newspapers in which he always praised Russian-German relations and praised the Germans. It's just the German media and politicians that didn't really reciprocate. And you could tell even now, you know, how the only thing that the Europeans think about is trash- talking and utterly ruining, or trying to ruin even