When Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin meet in Anchorage today, the format alone will be extraordinary. No diplomats. No note-takers. No advisors — only the two leaders, each accompanied by their own interpreter, in a private room.
Such tête-à-têtes are rare in modern diplomacy, and when they involve leaders with sharply different preparation styles, the advantage tends to fall to the one who is methodical and disciplined. In this case, all signs point to Vladimir Putin.
Putin has perfected the political monologue. White House sources told The Wall Street Journal he can speak for hours during calls with Trump, weaving history, grievances, and selective facts into an uninterrupted narrative. It’s not rambling for its own sake—it’s a tactic refined over decades as a KGB officer and as Russia’s leader: set the frame early, overwhelm with detail, and force the other party to respond inside that frame.
Trump is no stranger to long speeches, often drifting from prepared remarks into tangents about sharks, crowd sizes, or his “beautiful” body. But the difference is crucial: Putin’s discursions are calculated; Trump’s are improvised.
In last year’s Tucker Carlson interview, Putin delivered a half-hour history lecture stretching back to the eighth century. Carlson later admitted he thought it was a filibuster, interrupting several times—interruptions that clearly irritated Putin. In Anchorage, there will be no TV host cutting in.
Trump’s listening skills have long been under scrutiny. Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury portrayed him as a man who “preferred to be the person talking” and had little patience for reading or absorbing opposing views. Tony Schwartz, who ghostwrote The Art of the Deal, described him as “pathologically impulsive and self-centered, with a short attention span,” adding that “lying is second nature to him.”
During his presidency, aides reportedly tailored briefings to avoid contradicting him, leaning heavily on oral summaries and even repeating his name to maintain focus. In calls with Putin, officials say Trump became impatient when subjected to long lectures, often eager to interject. That tendency could be a serious liability in Alaska.
Complex topics—Ukraine, NATO commitments, sanctions—require sustained focus. Without it, details get lost and negotiations risk collapsing into binary choices: deal or no deal, peace or war.
Cognitive research suggests people with shorter attention spans remember best the beginning and end of a conversation. If Putin opens with grievances and ends with what appears to be a generous offer, those bookends may dominate Trump’s recollection—especially in the absence of advisors to challenge the narrative in real time.
Trump’s reliance on gut instinct and personal rapport adds another layer of vulnerability. He often judges people by how they make him feel in the moment, which leaves him open to flattery and selective storytelling. In a closed-door setting with no counterweight, that’s an exploitable weakness.
The structure of this meeting inherently favors Moscow. Putin is legendary for meticulous preparation and can recite historical dates, treaty clauses, and legal arguments without reference materials. Trump, by contrast, often depends on aides to brief him, clarify misunderstandings, and flag red lines. Without them, there’s no instant safety net.
The lack of U.S. note-takers compounds the risk. The Kremlin will have a detailed transcript—carefully curated for political use—while the American record will rest solely on Trump’s selective recollection. This asymmetry means Russia will be in a stronger position to define “what was agreed”.
One-on-one settings magnify emotional dynamics. Putin is skilled at creating a sense of personal connection, subtly reframing the conversation as a partnership rather than a negotiation. Normally, U.S. officials in the room can redirect talks back to national objectives or prevent overpromising. Without them, informal or ambiguous understandings can be reached—ones that may later prove costly or irreversible.
Putin also understands the strategic value of timing. By pacing discussions, he can reserve the most consequential proposals for the point when Trump’s focus is at its lowest. Patience and endurance favor the one willing to sit longest at the table, and in this arena, Putin’s stamina is proven.
For all the risks, Trump does have tools that could work in his favor. He is unpredictable—sometimes to the point of baffling adversaries. If he resists being drawn into Putin’s narrative and instead disrupts the flow with his own tangents, he could blunt the Russian president’s ability to control the conversation.
Trump is also adept at playing to an audience, even an imagined one. If he approaches the meeting as theater—envisioning headlines or political points he wants to generate afterward—he might shape the optics to his advantage, regardless of substance.
Finally, his transactional mindset could help in moments when Putin’s strategic patience drags on. Trump prefers quick wins and may press for a concession or symbolic gesture he can claim as a personal victory. While that risks superficial deals, it could also force Putin to commit to something concrete sooner than planned.
Even with these potential counters, the structural advantage still lies with Russia. In the short term, Moscow gains an open lane to shape Trump’s perception of the Ukraine conflict without policy experts pushing back. In the medium term, Putin could use whatever “understandings” emerge from Anchorage as a starting position in follow-up talks, claiming they reflect U.S. acceptance of certain terms. In the long term, vague or loosely worded commitments give the Kremlin space to interpret the outcome to its advantage, while Washington scrambles to clarify what was—or wasn’t—promised.
The Anchorage meeting is billed as a listening exercise for Trump. But the more pressing question is: who will be doing the listening?
In a room built for two, with one man armed with patience, precision, and a practiced narrative, and the other driven by instinct and prone to distraction, the balance of advantage may already be decided.
