Carlo Masala to Putin-Trump meeting: “That was the most irritating picture”

Professor Masala, for the Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Alaska summit was a complete success, wasn’t it?
Yes, absolutely. There is no ceasefire. There is no tightening of the sanctions. Trump had announced both as the goal. In addition: Putin hit Trump on American soil, a bilateral conversation. He is out of the isolation through the West, now negotiating again at eye level with the USA. All of this pays on Putin.

Is there anything that could be booked as a success for Europe?
The success from a European perspective is that there was no major deal across the heads of the Ukrainians, no lifting of sanctions, no announcement of a stronger economic cooperation between the USA and Russia.

Was there a scene at the Alaska summit that you particularly noticed?
A clapping US president when Putin came up to him on this red carpet. I think that was a surplus from Trump. But for me it was the most irritating picture of this summit. The most dangerous sentence was one of Trump at the press conference that things were now with the Ukrainian President Wolodymyr Selenskyj. That also sounds more like whether Putin had to make little concessions.

What remains is the impression that Trump from Putin has largely been ripped off. Although the Europeans have previously warned and prepared him. Has Trump Putin simply not up to?
I wouldn’t go that far. If Trump had been ripped off, there would now be a deal that would include the Russian demands. Trump would have announced that immediately. Another indication that it was not quite as round for Putin is the early demolition of the meeting. Actually, after the first round, a conversation should take place in a larger group about lunch, which should be about economic cooperation. For example, that you set up direct flights between Russia and the USA again. But that no longer took place. With a finely planned summit, such a program change is rather unusual. For me this is a sign that the American side was not quite as satisfied with the course.

According to a media report, Trump Selenskyj is said to have said in a phone call after the summit that a quick peace closure is better than a ceasefire.
If Axios’ reporting is right, Trump would have fallen over again and would have joined the Russian position. Then we would be back where we were in February. Trump would play Putin again. This also meant that Trump takes Putin’s perspective that one should talk about the reversal of the European Security Architecture on the 1997 status.

Another meeting between Trump and Putin was agreed. Maybe even in Moscow.
Putin said at the press conference that this could take place in Moscow. Trump seemed rather surprised. But Putin’s plan is very clear to move Trump into a series of bilateral Russian-American relationships, in which one can then talk about an expansion and normalization of the cooperation. So he avoids negotiating sanctions or in the end he even has to meet Selenskyj. That would be the worst for Putin because he would have to recognize Selenskyj as a legitimate conversation partner. The whole Russian propaganda number because of Selenskyj was a Nazi whose mandate had expired would be perdu.

What should Europe do now?
Europe could now do what Europe should have done all the time: stop looking at this snake of the American-Russian cooperation, with the concern that it could decide something across the heads of Ukraine and the Europeans. Finally develop your own strategy with a view to Ukraine. And then you can still try to influence Trump.

But did Chancellor Friedrich Merz not do that when he invited Selenskyj to Berlin in front of the Alaska summit and had the European partners switched on by video?
The meeting in Berlin shows the possibility that Europe has and at the same time its problem. It was really diplomatic to have a masterpiece from Merz that he got this meeting so quickly. And Trump also got to listen to the Europeans. The problem is that we are always surprised by Trump. And then try to prevent the worst. We always look at the USA, on Trump, and hope that he stays on track. And if he doesn’t stay there, we try to get him back on track. That is not a strategy of your own.

What could your own strategy look like?
First of all, the question of arms deliveries must be clarified, and then the relevant funds would also have to be made available. The second point would be to consistently enforce the already imposed sanctions. This also includes the question of how to deal with the frozen Russian assets. We crouch at 300 billion euros and still do not agree whether or not to make them available to Ukraine. This money from Ukraine would give completely new possibilities on the international market. And then we should think about secondary sanctions …

So sanctions against countries with which Russia trade operates?
Yes. A large part of the economy of Europe is out of the Russian market. But take a look at how exports to Kazakhstan have exploded in the past two years. Either every Kazakh family has six computers and four cars or the stuff is delivered to Russia via Kazakhstan. The ships of Putin’s shadow fleet are not yet consistently applied by Europe. And you should think about whether you do not return development aid in countries that provide these ships available to camouflage. These are all so gaps.

Friedrich Merz has been ruling for a little more than 100 days. How do you rate the previous balance of his Ukraine policy?
Merz has the right compass, with a view to Ukraine. At the same time, he made the Federal Republic of Germany a leading power in Europe by bringing everyone together. He really took lead here. He is a bit weak on the chest when it comes to the question of arms deliveries. He would finally have to make a decision. And by that I don’t mean the Taurus.