In the shadow of Joint Base Elmendorf–Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, U.S. President Donald Trump welcomed Russian President Vladimir Putin with the kind of pomp usually reserved for allies. The red carpet, the warm handshake, the absence of Ukrainian representation – all signaled a seismic shift in the choreography of global diplomacy. For Putin, it was a diplomatic resurrection. For Europe, a strategic migraine. And for Ukraine, a moment of existential peril.
Trump’s Alaska summit with Putin, followed days later by a tense Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and a phalanx of European leaders, has laid bare the fault lines in Western unity. The former reality TV star turned president is once again playing dealmaker – but this time, the stakes are not just ratings or real estate. They are borders, sovereignty, and the future of European security.
Trump’s approach to ending the war in Ukraine is vintage Trump: transactional, top-down, and heavy on optics.
“There’s no deal until there’s a deal,”
he told reporters after the Alaska summit, adding that he and Putin had made “great progress”. But the substance of that progress appears to hinge on a controversial premise: territorial concessions by Ukraine in exchange for a ceasefire and vague security guarantees.
“President Zelensky of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to,”
Trump posted on Truth Social, suggesting that Kyiv should give up Crimea and abandon its NATO aspirations. The implication was clear: peace is possible, but only if Ukraine capitulates to Moscow’s terms.
Putin, for his part, was more circumspect but no less assertive.
“The conflict’s primary causes must be eliminated,”
he said, warning Ukraine and its allies not to “throw a wrench in the works”.
The Kremlin’s framing – peace through recognition of Russian gains – was echoed in Trump’s post-summit rhetoric.
European leaders, alarmed by Trump’s unilateralism and the optics of Putin’s red-carpet welcome, scrambled to reassert their relevance. In a joint statement, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and others insisted that
“international borders must not be changed by force” and that Ukraine must receive “ironclad security guarantees”.
Macron was blunt:
“If we show weakness today in front of Russia, we are laying the ground for future conflicts”.
“Let’s try to put pressure on Russia,”
rejecting Trump’s suggestion that a ceasefire was unnecessary before a final settlement6.
This coordinated European stance is more than moral posturing. It reflects a strategic calculation that any peace deal rewarding Russian aggression would embolden Moscow and destabilize the continent. As EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas warned,
“Russia has no intention of ending this war any time soon”.
Caught between Trump’s pressure and Europe’s solidarity, Zelensky has walked a diplomatic tightrope. He rejected Trump’s territorial swap proposal within minutes of its publication, declaring,
“Russia must end this war, which it itself started”.
Yet he also expressed gratitude for U.S. support and cautiously endorsed Trump’s proposal for a trilateral summit with Putin.
“The question of territories is something we will leave between me and Putin,”
Zelensky said after his White House meeting, signaling openness to direct talks but not to preconditions. He emphasized that any deal must include robust security guarantees and that
“Europeans must be involved at every stage”.
Zelensky’s balancing act reflects the harsh reality of wartime diplomacy. He cannot afford to alienate Trump, whose administration controls the purse strings of U.S. military aid. But he also cannot accept a deal that undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty or sacrifices its territorial integrity.
Putin’s appearance in Alaska – his first visit to the U.S. in a decade – was more than symbolic. It was a calculated move to reframe Russia’s global posture. By meeting Trump on U.S. soil, Putin signaled that he is no longer a pariah but a peer. The absence of sanctions, the lack of Ukrainian representation, and the deferential tone of the summit all played into this narrative.
Russian state media hailed the summit as a turning point. And with no ceasefire, no new sanctions, and no concrete concessions from Moscow, it’s hard to argue otherwise. As Lithuanian Defense Minister Arvydas Anušauskas put it,
“Putin used manipulative rhetoric to mask continued violence”.
One of the few tangible outcomes of the Washington talks was Trump’s pledge to provide Ukraine with “security guarantees.” European leaders welcomed the move, with Ursula von der Leyen calling it “Article 5-like”. But the details remain murky.
Zelensky said the guarantees would be “formalized on paper within the next week to 10 days” and could include a $90 billion weapons package. Yet it’s unclear how these guarantees would be enforced, especially if Ukraine remains outside NATO.
Putin, predictably, bristled at the idea. Russian negotiator Kirill Dmitriev emphasized that Moscow opposes any short-term ceasefire and wants a “lasting peace” that presumably includes recognition of Russian territorial gains.
Trump’s peace gambit has opened a new chapter in the Ukraine war – one where diplomacy may finally take center stage. But the risks are profound. A deal that sacrifices Ukrainian territory could fracture Western unity, embolden authoritarian regimes, and set a dangerous precedent for conflict resolution.
As Zelensky put it,
“Peace must be lasting. Not like it was years ago, when Ukraine was forced to give up Crimea and part of our East – and Putin simply used it as a springboard for a new attack”.
The coming trilateral summit, if it happens, will be a test not just of diplomacy but of principle. Will Trump broker a deal that ends the war – or one that ends the credibility of the West’s commitment to sovereignty and international law?
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
