Reflections Ahead of the U.S.–Russia Summit

On August 15, the presidents of Russia and the United States will meet in Alaska, with the core agenda focused on ending the protracted Russia–Ukraine war. Prior to this meeting, both sides have engaged in multiple rounds of communication, and Washington has also exchanged views with the European Union and Ukraine, laying a solid groundwork. The face-to-face talks between President Putin and President Trump will largely serve to confirm and announce the results of earlier negotiations.

The war has lasted far longer and consumed far more resources than any party initially anticipated. If it drags on, it will inevitably become a war of attrition—exhausting manpower, materials, time, and finances—bringing harm to all sides. In such a context, it is essential to have a mediator who is acceptable to both parties, with credibility and the ability to facilitate a “dignified” conclusion. Since taking office, President Trump has successfully mediated multiple global disputes, earning him recognition as one of the most qualified candidates for this role.

While the terms for ending the war will be highly complex and sensitive, the guiding principle is clear: face reality, set aside disputes, look toward the future, and respond to the peoples’ aspirations for peace and development. This is not only the wish of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples but also the shared desire of the global community.

In the aftermath of the war, the world will be left with a profound realization: the logic of the imperial era has run its course, while modern democratic systems have shown greater vitality and resilience. A nation’s strength no longer lies in the size of its territory or population, but in whether its values gain international recognition and whether its political system has the capacity for sustained innovation. The outcome of the Russia–Ukraine war has shattered the centuries-old image of Russia as a great empire.

This reality also serves as a warning to countries still clinging to dreams of “national rejuvenation” through imperial ambitions—such as Iran. The widespread availability of information technology has brought the advantages of bottom-up governance into sharp focus: a system rooted in public opinion, centered on improving livelihoods, developing the economy, and advancing social progress. In contrast, top-down imperial models tend to disregard public will, pursue vanity projects, and engage in external expansion—often resulting in economic stagnation and hardship for the people. The Russia–Ukraine conflict has proven that imperial thinking cannot deliver genuine national revival.

For China, the lessons of this war are especially significant. The concept of “unification” has long been regarded as a symbol of national strength and rejuvenation. In a sense, Russia’s current military campaign reflects that same imperial logic. Yet the outcome has been enormous losses and strategic setbacks. The fundamental reason is that the imperial model is no longer suited to the realities of a globalized and digitized world. In Taiwan, awareness of freedom and democracy far surpasses that of Ukraine, and its modern political system has been functioning for decades, earning it the title “Beacon of Democracy in Asia.” Any attempt to launch a military conflict in the Taiwan Strait could prove even more costly and disastrous than the Russia–Ukraine war.

Ultimately, the advantages of modern governance are spreading rapidly through the information revolution. The quality of life enjoyed in Europe, North America, Japan, and Australia has become an aspirational benchmark for many living under traditional systems. National leaders should embrace the historical tide and promote institutional progress and social prosperity, rather than clinging to imperial mindsets or reducing national rejuvenation to mere territorial expansion. History has shown that, unlike the decline of the Russian Empire, the British Empire’s dissolution led to an unprecedented global expansion of its language and culture(This article is an academic discussion and does not express any political position).

Peter Lee In Toronto