Trump, Putin, and the End of the Liberal Order
Why Trump’s Alaska summit with Putin could redraw Asia’s map
By: Khanh Vu Duc
On August 8, US President Donald Trump announced he will meet Vladimir Putin on August 15 in Alaska, not Abu Dhabi as the Kremlin previously suggested – warning that discussions could even involve a potential “land swap.”
While details remain scarce, the symbolism is striking: a U.S. president choosing American soil at the edge of the Arctic, halfway between Washington and Moscow and long a Cold War military frontier, to discuss what could amount to the trading of territory. The United Nations charter declares that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” The United States was the key guarantor of this principle until Trump took office.
For Asia, the precedent that Trump and Putin are setting is alarming: if borders in Europe can be redrawn through leader-to-leader bargaining, contested lines in the Indo-Pacific may be next. This development raises the geopolitical stakes even higher, adding fresh urgency to a moment already laden with consequence.
A transactional “peace” deal over Ukraine risks legitimizing territorial swaps, and sending a dangerous signal to Beijing, from Taiwan to the South China Sea. Asia is no longer a bystander; it’s the next arena where the rules could be rewritten.
Now confirmed for Alaska, the summit’s stated topic is “peace,” but its significance stretches far beyond Ukraine. This isn’t just a diplomatic overture. It’s an inflection point in world affairs. A global transition is underway, and this summit may mark its irreversible consolidation.
Behind the theatrics lies a more profound shift: the end of the postwar liberal order and the dawn of a power-based, interest-driven world — where force dictates borders and strongmen negotiate the future behind closed doors.
Not About Peace – About Precedent
Trump has never disguised his disdain for multilateralism, treaties, or shared values. In his worldview, American power is maximized not through alliances but through raw leverage. With “America First” as a doctrine, Trump deals with adversaries the same way he deals with allies: as obstacles, not partners.
If this meeting results in a ceasefire that allows Russia to retain occupied Ukrainian territory, it won’t be a peace accord. It will be the formalization of a strategic freeze, a reward for Putin’s aggression, and a betrayal of the principle that international borders cannot be changed by force.
Ukraine may survive as a state but not as a sovereign equal. Its future could resemble a Korean Peninsula-style division, leaving it permanently destabilized and vulnerable to Russian influence.
New Era of Authoritarian Summitry
What makes this summit unique isn’t its timing — but its tone and precedent. Trump is normalizing a new style of diplomacy: personalist, opaque, and transactional. Forget the United Nations. Forget NATO. Forget rules. In this emerging order, power replaces principle.
That’s why Beijing will be watching the Trump-Putin meeting more closely than Brussels, Paris, London or Berlin. If the West accepts a deal where Russia keeps parts of Ukraine, it validates the very model Xi Jinping favors: fait accompli territorial expansion, followed by selective diplomacy on favorable terms.
Asia is not just a distant observer in this drama. The implications of a Trump–Putin “deal” on Ukraine will be felt most acutely across the Indo-Pacific. If Putin’s territorial grab is normalized, Xi may interpret it as an invitation to escalate pressure on Taiwan – diplomatically, economically, and possibly militarily. Trump has shown no consistent commitment to Taiwan’s defense, and if Ukraine can be traded for peace, so can Taipei.
Expect bolder moves in the Spratly and Paracel Islands. A weakened international order, where maritime claims and military outposts are not meaningfully challenged, favors China’s strategy of gradual dominance. Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia will be left scrambling to reassess their defense postures.
US Security Guarantees
A Trump presidency that celebrates bilateral “deals” while devaluing alliances threatens the credibility of American commitments across Asia from Seoul to Manila. The Quad, AUKUS, and even US-Japan defense ties could enter a new era of transactionalism.
In short: Trump’s realignment with Putin opens a strategic vacuum across Asia. China may be the first to fill it.
While Europe is grappling with betrayal and Ukraine is bracing for abandonment, Asia must prepare for the ripple effects of a new geopolitical order. The old model – liberal internationalism, backed by US leadership – is collapsing under the weight of Trump’s unilateralism.
The Alaska venue and the hint of a “land swap” are not trivial details. They reveal Trump’s willingness to reshape borders as part of personal deals. If that precedent is set in Ukraine, it sends a dangerous signal to Asia that territorial disputes can be resolved not by law or consensus, but by the bargaining power of leaders behind closed doors.
The Trump-Putin meeting is not a sideshow. It is a recalibration of global norms, and Asia is directly in the blast radius. What begins in Alaska may echo in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea.
The Perspective That Matters Now
Rather than conclude with nostalgic appeals to rules and institutions, we must recognize the emerging reality: the international order is not evolving — it is fragmenting. And those who survive this new landscape will not be those who wait for Washington’s leadership, but those who adapt strategically to power politics.
Asia must hedge now, diplomatically, militarily, and economically. That means accelerating joint maritime patrols, investing in anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities, and deepening intelligence sharing among like-minded states. The next chapter of great-power confrontation may not be written in Kyiv. It may be written in Kaohsiung, the Spratlys, or along the Mekong.
The world Trump is shaping is no longer “post-American.” It is post-order. And if a US president is willing to meet a rival on US soil to discuss trading land like poker chips, Southeast Asia should take notice. The logic that might freeze Ukraine’s borders could just as easily be applied to the South China Sea, the Mekong, or even the Himalayas. ASEAN’s challenge is no longer abstract. It is immediate: act now to build the capacity to defend and negotiate from a position of strength, before someone else decides its borders for it.
Depressing but very perceptive, thanks for this piece.
Strong states or empires imposing their will on and collecting tribute from weaker people is not something new. The Romans did that in the whole Mediterranean and South European area. The British Empire imposed its policies and trading conditions on many parts of the World as long as it was the strongest. When the Brits lost power after WW2, the US and the Soviet Union took over, each in their respective share of the World. At the beginng of colonisation, our colonies may have felt similarly to what we feel now in relation to US, China and Russia trying to impose their will on Europe and South East Asia. History repeats itself, though with different means in the age of the atom, space travel, the internet and AI.