Trump and Putin’s “perfect 10” meeting: Why ASEAN cannot afford to be a spectator

Trump even rated the meeting a “10 out of 10” because he and Putin “got along so well.” Yet beneath the red carpets, warm handshakes, and the flyover of B-2 bombers and F-35 jets lay an uncomfortable truth: there was no actual deal on a ceasefire, only vague optimism.

For ASEAN, this meeting is not a distant drama in Washington and Moscow. It carries immediate consequences. The way the world’s two most nuclear-armed powers conduct themselves in negotiations, whether flippant or firm, shapes the environment in which Southeast Asia must navigate its own diplomacy, trade, and security dilemmas.

Trump’s claim of “great progress” but simultaneous concession that “there’s no deal until there’s a deal” exposes the fragility of this supposed breakthrough.

It is diplomacy by spectacle: optics taking precedence over substance. For ASEAN, this raises uncomfortable questions about whether great-power diplomacy can be trusted to deliver real peace when it is performed as television theatre, and whether regional organisations can still play a meaningful role in shaping outcomes when superpowers dominate the stage with symbolism but leave conflicts unresolved.

ASEAN’s credibility has always rested on its patient, consensus-driven approach. Yet when the United States treats international agreements as little more than expressions of personal rapport and Russia leverages optics to project parity with Washington, ASEAN risks being overshadowed.

Trump’s suggestion that he would “back off Russian sanctions for now” may appear distant to Jakarta, Bangkok, or Manila, but its ripple effects reach ASEAN shores. Sanctions are not just political signals — they shape global markets, commodity prices, and investor confidence.

If Washington signals inconsistency, tightening sanctions one day and relaxing them the next, ASEAN economies, heavily dependent on global trade flows, will feel the shock.

Russia has also become more visible in Southeast Asia, from arms sales to Vietnam and Myanmar to energy cooperation with Indonesia and the Philippines. If U.S.–Russia relations continue to oscillate unpredictably, ASEAN states will be forced into delicate balancing acts.

Too much engagement with Moscow risks American displeasure; too much alignment with Washington risks alienating a Russia that is steadily regaining influence.

The Trump–Putin performance contrasts sharply with ASEAN’s painstaking diplomacy. Consider the recent Thai Cambodian border conflict, where ASEAN mediation, backed by Malaysia’s chairmanship, produced a ceasefire within days.

Or ASEAN’s continued search for a framework to manage tensions in the South China Sea, despite competing national interests. These processes are far from perfect, but they rest on a recognition that durable agreements require structure, monitoring, and collective buy-in. They are not sealed with a handshake or a “10 out of 10” rating.

Trump’s flippancy highlights why ASEAN must continue emphasising institutional mechanisms — whether through the ASEAN Regional Forum, the East Asia Summit, or the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus). If global powers are content with symbolism, ASEAN must anchor itself in substance.

Trump’s red-carpet welcome and flyover of strategic bombers and stealth fighters made for compelling images. But ASEAN should interpret them with caution. Symbolism does not equal security.

For smaller states in Southeast Asia, stability is not measured in military flyovers but in the absence of escalation, the availability of trade routes, and the predictability of great-power behaviour.

If Washington uses military theatrics as diplomatic props while leaving ceasefires unresolved, ASEAN risks inheriting a world of heightened tensions but weakened institutions.

Worse, Southeast Asia may be forced into greater militarisation — an arms race it can ill afford — simply to hedge against uncertainty.

The Trump–Putin encounter underscores the importance of ASEAN defending its own model of diplomacy. Centrality cannot remain an abstract slogan.

If superpowers conduct negotiations as spectacles, ASEAN must ensure its platforms remain the venues where security issues are discussed with seriousness.

The East Asia Summit and ASEAN Regional Forum cannot be reduced to talk shops; they must continue proving that substance is possible when others offer only optics.

Equally vital is ASEAN’s ability to avoid the trap of great-power rivalries. With U.S.–Russia relations swinging unpredictably, Southeast Asia cannot afford to become a pawn in their game.

Neutrality, non-alignment, and convening power must remain the backbone of ASEAN’s strategy. But neutrality requires unity, and that unity remains fragile. Without it, ASEAN risks being picked apart by external actors who exploit divisions.

The economic dimension is no less urgent. Sudden shifts in sanctions regimes affect energy, commodities, and financial markets.

ASEAN must deepen its economic resilience by diversifying trade partners, strengthening intra-ASEAN trade, and creating buffers against volatility triggered by the manoeuvring of larger powers.

Equally, ASEAN must highlight the humanitarian dimensions of security. Where Washington and Moscow often showcase military might, ASEAN has built credibility through disaster relief cooperation, humanitarian assistance, and confidence-building measures.

These should be emphasised as the true markers of regional security, contrasting starkly with the hollow theatrics of military flyovers.

One danger is that ASEAN leaders, watching the theatrics of Trump and Putin, may be tempted to emulate them. The idea that diplomacy can be reduced to strongman posturing, handshakes, and dramatic gestures may look appealing in the short term.

But it would undermine the credibility ASEAN has built over decades as a forum for dialogue and consensus. Southeast Asia cannot afford to abandon patient diplomacy for quick theatrics. Unlike superpowers, ASEAN does not have the luxury of walking away from the consequences of escalation. Its very survival depends on getting the details right — ceasefire monitoring, maritime cooperation, trade facilitation — not simply projecting camaraderie on a global stage.

Trump may call his meeting with Putin a “10 out of 10.” But for ASEAN, the score looks different. The meeting produced no ceasefire, no framework for implementation, and no clarity on sanctions.

What it did produce was a reminder: great-power theatrics can destabilise smaller regions when spectacle substitutes for substance.

ASEAN should therefore treat this as a cautionary tale. Stability in Southeast Asia will not be secured by watching Washington and Moscow trade gestures.

It will be secured by ASEAN doubling down on its own model — quiet diplomacy, collective agreements, and an insistence that regional issues cannot be hijacked by the whims of individual leaders.

The Trump–Putin encounter demonstrates the risks of flippant statecraft. For ASEAN, the lesson is not to imitate but to innovate. The region must carve out its own path of security and diplomacy, grounded in rules and humanitarian priorities rather than red carpets and flyovers.

In a world where great powers are increasingly consumed by spectacle, ASEAN has an opportunity to remind the international community of the value of substance.

That is how Southeast Asia can safeguard its future — not as a passive spectator of U.S.–Russia theatrics, but as a proactive shaper of regional stability.

---

Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is Professor of ASEAN Studies and Director of the Institute of Internationaliation and ASEAN Studies (IINTAS) at the International Islamic University Malaysia.