The Kremlin itself acknowledged the failure of the ‘spirit of Anchorage’: Moscow expected a deal on Donbass but was disappointed

A new nervous term has appeared in Russian diplomacy — more precisely, an old term that is now beginning to crumble before our eyes. We are talking about the so-called “spirit of Anchorage” — a formula that Moscow has been trying to use for almost a year to explain that after the meeting between Donald Trump and Putin in Alaska, a special understanding on Ukraine arose between the US and Russia.

Now Russia itself is effectively admitting: this construct did not work.

In recent days, several high-ranking Russian officials have stated that the United States allegedly did not fulfill the “understandings” or “agreements” reached at the Anchorage meeting. Moscow is increasingly talking about disappointment with the American line, although the US has not publicly confirmed the existence of such commitments.

What Moscow called the “spirit of Anchorage”

Formally, the expression sounded almost diplomatic. In reality, it served a completely different purpose.

Under the “spirit of Anchorage,” the Kremlin understood its notion that Trump was allegedly ready to accept a key Russian demand: Ukraine should give up all of Donbas, including territories that Russia does not control, and in return, Moscow would temporarily halt advances on other fronts. This is how Reuters describes the Russian interpretation of the outcomes of the meeting in Alaska.

What is more important is that this was not an officially announced deal. There was no published document. There was no confirmation from Washington that the US agreed to recognize Russia’s right to Donbas or force Ukraine to retreat from its own territory.

But for the Kremlin, this was enough to build a propaganda framework.

Moscow presented the situation as if peace was almost agreed upon, but Ukraine, Europe, the “party of war,” and everyone not ready to accept Russian terms were in the way. It was a convenient way of exerting pressure: if there is a “spirit of Anchorage,” then Kyiv supposedly only needs to agree with what larger players have already decided for it.

In reality, such logic has nothing to do with sustainable peace. It is the logic of coercion.

Why Russian statements have become sharper right now

First, Putin’s aide Yuri Ushakov stated that one side allegedly remains committed to the “understandings” of Anchorage, while the other failed to fulfill its part. Later, he added that Russia no longer expects these agreements to be fulfilled but is waiting for “victory” and the realization of its own goals.

Then Sergey Lavrov went further and essentially began to present the meeting in Alaska as a possible American maneuver that allowed time for Ukraine’s rearmament. His deputy Sergey Ryabkov also spoke about the US moving away from “basic understandings,” although he emphasized that contacts with Washington would continue.

This is an important change in tone.

Previously, the Kremlin more often blamed Ukraine: Kyiv allegedly does not want peace, Zelensky allegedly hinders agreements, Europe allegedly pushes for war. Now some of the irritation is shifting to the US. Moscow seems to admit: the expected American pressure on Ukraine did not occur in the form the Kremlin had hoped for.

For Russian propaganda, this is an unpleasant moment. For almost a year, it explained to the domestic audience that Trump understands Russia better than European leaders and that Washington could become an instrument for formalizing the war on Russian terms. But if the US does not fulfill what Moscow considered “understandings,” then the entire construct loses its meaning.

The main failure of the Kremlin is not diplomatic but psychological

Russia hoped that it could be perceived as a party that simply wants to “fix the reality on the ground.” But the reality here is different: Moscow demands not only recognition of already occupied territories but also the transfer of what it could not fully capture.

This is not a compromise. It is an attempt to gain through negotiations what could not be obtained by military force.

Therefore, complaints about the collapse of the “spirit of Anchorage” do not look like regret over a failed peace but as irritation over a failed capitulation of Ukraine.

This is where the key question arises for the Israeli audience. NAnews — Israel News views such events not only as another diplomatic dispute around Ukraine but as an indicator of how authoritarian regimes use the language of negotiations. They talk about “peace,” but under this word, they often mean the consolidation of capture, punishment of the victim, and reward for the aggressor.

Why this is important for Israel

At first glance, the dispute over the “spirit of Anchorage” may seem distant from Israel. But it is not.

Israel knows well that security, border, and mediation formulas are never abstract. When one side attacks, captures, kills, and then demands to recognize the result of forceful pressure as the basis for “peace,” it is not about diplomacy but about the legalization of violence.

The Ukrainian case is important for Israel also because it shows how Russia works with international mediators. Moscow tries to create the impression that great powers can agree among themselves, and the country against which the war is waged should only accept the outcome. This is a dangerous principle for any state that lives in a complex regional environment and depends on international support, alliances, and the right to self-defense.

If tomorrow such logic becomes the norm, any aggressor will be able to say: “We are ready for peace if we are left with everything we have captured and a little more.” After that, the victim will be accused not of defending itself but of “hindering the agreement.”

For Israel, this is a particularly sensitive topic. The country constantly faces attempts by external players to simplify reality, pressure security, and substitute the issue of protection with the issue of political convenience. Therefore, the Ukrainian situation is not only a Ukrainian story. It is an example of how the international system is tested for its ability to distinguish negotiations from blackmail.

What the new rhetoric of Moscow means

The current statements by Ushakov, Lavrov, and Ryabkov show that the Kremlin is experiencing not just a diplomatic pause. It has faced the fact that its expectations from Washington have not been realized.

Reuters separately notes: in Moscow, they wanted the US to act as a mediator that would help end the war on terms favorable to Russia. Analyst of the International Crisis Group Oleg Ignatov believes that behind the offended rhetoric lies deep disappointment of the Kremlin.

This disappointment is further intensified because the American focus has shifted. According to Reuters, the attention of key American mediators, including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, is now also linked to negotiations on Iran, and the Kremlin expects the resumption of contacts when they become available.

For Moscow, this is painful. It wanted to be the main issue on the global agenda around which Washington would build a separate deal. Instead, Russia sees that its demands do not automatically become US policy.

Ukraine remains a subject, not an object of the deal

The most important thing in this story is not that Russia is offended by the US. The main thing is that Ukraine has not disappeared from the equation.

Moscow is used to talking about the war as if everything is decided by Washington and the Kremlin. But Ukraine continues to resist, Europe strengthens support, and the international discussion does not boil down to the Russian ultimatum on Donbas. According to Reuters, Ukraine consistently states that it will not give up its territory.

This is what breaks the Russian scenario.

If the “spirit of Anchorage” really meant pressure on Kyiv for territorial capitulation, then the Kremlin would be talking about diplomatic success today. But it talks about a breakdown, US retreat, and the need to achieve “victory.” This means that behind the beautiful formula was not a real peace architecture, but the expectation that Ukraine would be forced to accept Russian terms.

NAnews — Israel News will continue to follow this line because it shows not only the state of Russian-American contacts but also a broader principle: can borders be imposed by force in the 21st century, and then demand that the world call it a compromise.

The failure of the “spirit of Anchorage” is not just another episode of diplomatic bickering. It is an acknowledgment that the Russian strategy of pressure through imaginary agreements has collided with reality.

The Kremlin tried to present the meeting between Trump and Putin as the beginning of a big bargain, where Ukraine was supposed to pay with territory for a temporary ceasefire. But the US did not confirm such commitments, Ukraine did not agree to give up its land, and Europe did not disappear from the process.

Now Moscow is changing its tone: yesterday Anchorage was presented as a diplomatic foundation, today — as an alleged American trick. Such a change in rhetoric speaks of weakness of position, not strength.

For Ukraine, this means that the struggle is not only on the front but also around the right to be the subject of its own destiny. For Israel, it is a reminder that any “peace plan” should be evaluated not by beautiful words but by what it offers the victim of aggression: security or capitulation.

And if Russia today complains that the “spirit of Anchorage” is dead, then the question sounds differently: was there ever a spirit of peace there — or just an attempt to formalize someone else’s territory as a subject of a deal?