As US President Donald Trump prepares to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska today (15th August), the stakes are extraordinarily high. The war in Ukraine has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and destabilised Europe’s security order. To anticipate what might happen in Alaska, history offers a playbook – and perhaps a warning. Key questions decide whether summits make history: Will they clarify each side’s intentions and red lines? And will they build enough trust to enable genuine progress? History provides several instructive cases – each combining these elements differently – and a couple carry special warnings for this meeting.
Vienna 1961 – Kennedy & Khrushchev: A Cautionary Tale
In June 1961, a young John F. Kennedy met Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna and left feeling outmatched. “Worst thing in my life,” Kennedy confessed afterwards. The summit did clarify intentions – each realised how far apart they stood on Berlin – but it built no trust. Instead, Khrushchev came away convinced that Kennedy lacked resolve, emboldening him to test US limits. Just two months later, the Soviet leader erected the Berlin Wall, and the following year, he tested Kennedy’s resolve by audaciously placing nuclear missiles in Cuba, precipitating the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age. Vienna shows how a summit can deepen divisions and invite dangerous gambles.
Geneva 1985 – Reagan & Gorbachev: A Tentative Thaw
When Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev met in Geneva in November 1985, expectations were modest. Reagan, convinced Vienna had failed for lack of personal rapport, structured the meeting to encourage one-on-one interaction. Their private fireside chat by Lake Geneva not only clarified intentions but also created a personal connection. Gorbachev later wrote that at Geneva the “human factor had come into operation,” signalling that the two men had forged a degree of mutual understanding and trust. No major deal was signed at Geneva, but the leaders did jointly declare that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” Geneva ’85 showed how genuine personal chemistry can foster trust, reduce nuclear risks, and lay a foundation for future breakthroughs.
Camp David 1978 – Carter’s Mediation: Enemies to Peace Partners
One of the most striking summit successes came not from superpower rivals, but from US mediation between two sworn enemies. In September 1978, President Jimmy Carter invited Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to the secluded Camp David retreat for 13 days of negotiations. Decades of bitter conflict and four wars lay between Egypt and Israel. Carter soon found direct meetings too volatile, and by day three, he physically separated Sadat and Begin, shuttling between their cabins with proposals for the next ten days. By painstaking shuttle diplomacy, Carter gradually built relational empathy between the two foes – getting each to understand the other’s core concerns and feel heard. He gained both men’s trust by respecting their identities and needs. The Camp David Accords were signed after nearly two weeks of U.S.-mediated bargaining – a feat many deemed impossible. Carter’s hands-on mediation is widely credited for this outcome (“no Carter, no peace treaty,” as participants said). The Camp David summit exemplifies how a skilled third party using empathy and relentless shuttle diplomacy can transform enemies into partners. The result was a landmark peace agreement that has endured for 45 years.
