Bismarck once said that politics was “the art of the possible.” What is possible in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?

Donald Trump’s summit meeting with Vladimir Putin at Joint Base Elmendorf–Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday was supposed to provide the answer to that question.

It didn’t, much to the relief of the anti-Trump press. The BBC, noting the red carpet that Trump had laid out for Putin, fumed that it was terrible that the President of the United States should be treating a world leader like, well, a world leader. Their phrase was “war criminal,” not “world leader,” but who’s counting? “A red line was crossed on a red carpet,” the BBC intoned, “as President Trump warmly welcomed the man shunned by Western leaders since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.” (Was the invasion described as “full-scale” to distinguish it from the “minor incursion” to which Joe Biden gave his implicit blessing? Just checking.)

As far as I could see, the BBC did not mention that the courtesy carpet was counterpointed by a flyover by a B-2 bomber and a couple of fighter jets just as Trump and Putin made their way down the carpet together. Those planes, along with the other high-tech fighter jets parked on the tarmac right next to the carpet, were not there by accident.

“Give Peace a Chance.” What used to be a mantra of the Left is now one of Donald Trump’s primary mottos (along with, let us not forget, “Peace Through Strength”). So far, he has brokered peace deals between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Cambodia and Thailand, Israel and Iran, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India and Pakistan, Egypt and Ethiopia, and Serbia and Kosovo. And let’s not forget the world historical achievement represented by the Abraham Accords, which, mirabile dictu, brought peace to the Middle East.

Would he have gotten the John Lennon seal of approval? Maybe. But those steely-eyed commentators at the BBC are a tougher crowd. The phrase “Pursuing Peace” was plastered all over the backdrop of the stage where the two presidents spoke. You might think that was an appropriate slogan.

The BBC discerned dark currents. Ukrainian President Zelensky was not invited to this powwow. Just so, the Afghan government was not invited to the talks Trump held with the Taliban during his first term. “It won’t be lost on some observers,” quoth the BBC, “most of all Afghans, that the US president is sitting down with President Putin on the day which marks the fourth anniversary of the Taliban’s return to power. The Taliban knew that once they made a deal with the US, their victory was in sight; President Putin may be thinking the same.”

Putin may be thinking that. Then again, he may be thinking about how he can make a good deal with the United States. Who knows? Maybe he was thinking about dinner.

So what happened? Trump said that he would rank their discussion as very good—“10 out of 10,” he said. He and Putin came to an agreement about a lot of issues. Some issues remained. “There’s no deal until there’s a deal,” Trump acknowledged when the summit concluded. “I will call up NATO in a little while. I will call up the various people that I think are appropriate, and I’ll, of course, call up President Zelensky and tell him about today’s meeting. It’s ultimately up to them.”

For his part, Putin said he could “confirm” the contention that, had Trump been president in 2022, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine. What should we make of that?

Within hours of the summit, it was being reported that President Zelensky would be coming back to meet with Trump in the Oval Office on Monday. Memo to Zelensky: Trump is correct. “Russia is a very big power, and they’re not.” Perhaps the biggest policy desideratum to issue from the Trump-Putin summit was a change from “ceasefire” to “peace.” “It was determined by all,” Trump posted on Truth Social, “that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere ceasefire agreement, which often times do not hold up.”

Hillary Clinton said that should Donald Trump manage to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine, she would herself nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize. I’d say that she should make sure to have her nomination form ready, except that her condition was that Russia give back all the territory it has absorbed from Ukraine since 2014: Crimea, those Russian-speaking parts of the Donbas, and a corridor into Crimea.

As I have written before, I do not think that will happen. “It’s fun to denounce Vladimir Putin as a ‘war criminal’ and all-around bad hat,” I noted a while back. “It allows one to bask in the glow of one’s superior moral fiber. But as Henry Kissinger observed, ‘The demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy, it is an alibi for the absence of one.’”

That is still the case. I suspect that Zelensky’s Monday meeting in the White House will be of a very different character from his previous visit. I also think that there is a good chance that it will contradict those pundits who say that the Trump-Putin Alaska summit was a “nothingburger.” In the fullness of time, which might be as early as Monday but will likely be several weeks yet, a full-fledged peace deal will be worked out between Russia and Ukraine. Bismarck will be proved right once again. Zelensky will achieve what is possible, but no more. Russia may give up some token territory, but it will keep Crimea, the deep-water Black Sea port, and most of the Donbas it has seized at such a cost of blood and treasure. That’s my prediction. Let’s see if I am right.