After a whirlwind of high-stakes diplomacy this August, the global balance of power appears to be shifting in ways few would have predicted just a year ago. In the span of only two weeks, U.S. President Donald Trump convened a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, met with European leaders in Washington D.C., and imposed steep tariffs on India—moves that have left allies and adversaries alike recalibrating their strategies. The consequences of these actions are rippling across continents, from the battlefields of Ukraine to the negotiating tables of Beijing and New Delhi.
The Alaska summit on August 15, 2025, was billed as a bold attempt to end the grinding war in Ukraine. According to The Washington Post, the event was meticulously prepared, with input from some of the CIA’s top Russia experts. Yet, in a move that shocked many within the intelligence community, one senior CIA Russia specialist—who had devoted 29 years to the agency—was stripped of her security clearance just days after the summit. She had been preparing for a prestigious European posting, previously approved by CIA Director John Ratcliffe, but the reasons for her sudden sidelining remain shrouded in mystery.
While the drama played out behind closed doors in Langley, the summit itself was a spectacle. Trump relished the pageantry—a red carpet, a stealth bomber flyover, and the eyes of the world fixed on Alaska. But the substance of the meeting favored Putin. As Report and The Washington Post detailed, the Russian leader achieved several key objectives: a face-to-face with the U.S. president on American soil, a deferral of economic penalties, and continued freedom to prosecute his war in Ukraine without making significant concessions. Putin also convinced Trump to abandon the European demand for an unconditional ceasefire and to accept, in principle, Russia’s territorial claims—though Trump maintained that only Ukraine could formally agree to such terms.
Despite these wins, Putin left without the sweeping deals he’d hoped for on arms control, natural resources, or Arctic cooperation. Still, as Dr. Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow at Defense Priorities, observed, the optics alone were a boon for Moscow. The summit provided legitimacy and kept the U.S. engaged in negotiations—an essential ingredient for Putin’s broader strategy.
Trump, for his part, did not come away empty-handed. He embraced his role as would-be peacemaker and basked in the praise from European leaders during their subsequent Washington meeting. Yet, as Report noted, his real gains were political: Putin validated Trump’s longstanding grievances against the Biden administration and gave him an escape from his own ultimatum to end the war within ten days. Trump also managed to dodge European demands for “iron-clad” security guarantees for Ukraine, offering only vague commitments and putting the onus back on Europe to provide the bulk of any support.
But beneath the surface, Trump’s leverage was limited. He admitted as much in private, acknowledging that he had few tools to force Putin’s hand and was wary of pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into concessions that could be politically costly at home. The war ground on, with Ukraine’s position steadily worsening. Russian forces advanced in the Donbas, Ukrainian troops faced critical personnel shortages, and Western security guarantees remained frustratingly ambiguous. As Report described, the longer the conflict drags on, the weaker Kyiv’s bargaining position becomes.
The European leaders, meanwhile, left Washington with little to show for their efforts. Their goal had been to secure clear U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s defense. Instead, they received only tepid assurances. As Report put it, Europe’s leaders “looked desperate and panicked,” racing across the Atlantic only to find themselves sidelined. Their inability to provide significant military aid or economic leverage left them with few options to influence the war’s trajectory.
Against this backdrop, Trump’s decision to slap a 50% tariff on India for its Russian oil purchases sparked a diplomatic firestorm. Indian officials condemned the move as “unfair, unjustified, and unreasonable,” arguing that it was both coercive and hypocritical, especially given Europe’s continued imports of Russian energy. The tariff was a turning point. India, long a central player in U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy and a key partner in balancing China’s rise, found itself at odds with Washington.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi responded swiftly. On the same day the tariffs were announced, he declared his intention to attend the late August summit of the China-led Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Beijing—a first in seven years. India and China resumed direct flights, and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited New Delhi for talks with Modi and other top officials. The two countries announced agreements to address lingering border disputes, lift restrictions on Chinese rare earth exports to India, and boost trade and investment.
Experts caution that this thaw does not signal a fundamental strategic realignment. “No one in Beijing or New Delhi sees their re-energized diplomacy as a fundamental strategic shift,” Daniel Markey of the Stimson Center told Report. “There’s still too much distrust.” Yet, the momentum is unmistakable, and the rift with Washington may drive India closer to China and Russia within the frameworks of BRICS and other Global South platforms.
BRICS, once a loose grouping of emerging economies, has grown in both ambition and influence. As Sushant Singh, a Yale lecturer and former Indian military officer, explained, “Sustained U.S. pressure will indeed drive deeper [Indian] BRICS participation. India increasingly sees Chinese-led frameworks as necessary alternatives to unpredictable American coercion.” The bloc now accounts for 56% of the world’s population and 44% of global GDP. Trump’s threats to impose a further 10% tariff on BRICS participation—calling the group “anti-American”—may only accelerate its cohesion and anti-Western tilt.
This period of shifting alliances and escalating rhetoric has profound implications for the future of U.S. global influence. As Mihaela Papa of MIT’s Center for International Studies noted, “Rising U.S.-India frictions are now shifting the boundaries of what India is prepared to pursue with China and within BRICS.” For many in the Global South, Washington’s actions reinforce the perception of the U.S. as a coercive power, quick to use economic tools to pursue its interests, often at the expense of partners.
With the war in Ukraine grinding on, U.S.-India relations at a nadir, and BRICS growing in stature, the world is watching to see how Washington will respond. Will it double down on pressure and risk further alienation, or seek new ways to engage an increasingly multipolar world? The coming months may well determine the answer.
As the dust settles from a summer of summits and sanctions, one thing is clear: the old certainties of global power are slipping away, replaced by a new era of competition, shifting alliances, and unpredictable outcomes.
