By Harsh V Pant
The much- vaunted Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska yielded results little of substance, especially as it was being billed as the summit that will lead to a ceasefire pact in the Russia-Ukraine war. Instead, in a strange turn of events, Donald Trump is now questioning the need for an immediate ceasefire and backing the long-held Russian position that a full settlement of the issue is needed before any ceasefire can come about. Trump will now be meeting Volodymyr Zelenskyy to urge him to agree to a peace deal. But as the latter has said, “We see that Russia rebuffs numerous calls for a ceasefire and has not yet determined when it will stop the killing. This complicates the situation.”
Putin strengthens hand, Trump shifts stance
It was always complicated. Only Trump had a grandiose notion about his deal-making prowess that allowed him to conjure up the possibility of a quick pact with Vladimir Putin to end the war. In the end, it was Putin who got the better of Trump. He even used Trump’s words that the conflict in Ukraine would have never started had Trump been in power to good effect. The once-shunned Russian leader is now back in American good books, being feted with a red carpet and driven in Trump’s armoured limousine. The contrast with the way Zelenskyy was treated in the White House just a few months back couldn’t have been starker. No wonder Putin has described the summit as “very useful”, underlining that “We [Russia] had the opportunity, which we did, to talk about the genesis, about the causes of this crisis,” and that “it is the elimination of these root causes that should be the basis for settlement.” Putin has reportedly set out his conditions for peace clearly—Ukraine must withdraw from the Donetsk region of the Donbas for Russia to freeze the front lines in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.
Trump had to change gears fast—he did so by changing his tone. After the Alaska summit, he wrote on Truth Social, “it was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement.” Ceasefires, he now suggests, “often times do not hold up.” This not only contradicts his publicly-stated position but also negates Ukraine’s main demand—an unconditional ceasefire must come first for any peace dialogue to move forward. This has European support and was conveyed to Trump before his summit with Putin.
Such a stance is important for Putin as it buys the Russian military time on the battlefield, where they seem to gaining ground. The few months before winter kicks in are crucial for Putin to solidify his military gains and it’s the time that Ukraine doesn’t have. Russian military operations in Ukraine can now go unimpeded even as it gets bogged down with assuaging Trump’s ego.
Europe caught in the crossfire
For his part, Zelenskyy has firmly rejected the idea of surrendering control of the Donbas region—which includes Luhansk and Donetsk—arguing that doing so could provide Russia with a launchpad for future aggression. He has also laid out Ukraine’s conditions for what he calls a “truly sustainable and reliable peace”, which include a credible security guarantee and the return of children allegedly taken from occupied territories by Russian forces. Trump seems willing to offer security guarantees for Ukraine—a central demand from Zelenskyy and the so-called “coalition of the willing,” a group of nations including the UK, France, and Germany that have committed to upholding peace in Ukraine once a settlement is reached. But how far can Ukraine and Europe rely on Trump remains an open question at this stage.
Trump’s current Ukraine war policy emphasises is an amalgamation of a push for a comprehensive peace deal, limited American involvement backed by sanctions and European troops, territorial compromises from Ukraine, and securing resource-based leverages in reconstruction efforts. But the shift from one end to the other has been quite dramatic at times, with the most recent one being from seeking a temporary ceasefire toward pursuing a comprehensive peace agreement—a lasting resolution rather than a short-term pause in fighting. Similarly, while signalling openness to providing US security guarantees for Ukraine, he envisages a European-led peacekeeping mission, supported by the US. Such an approach has sparked substantial concern in Kyiv and across Europe about its consequences for Ukrainian sovereignty and Western solidarity.
It is against this backdrop that Europe has been warning that no peace deal can proceed without their participation, underscoring repeatedly that Ukraine and Europe must be central to any talks, especially given the gravity of territorial and security issues at stake. With Trump pressing Europeans to take greater responsibility for security—and hinting at a reduced American presence—Europe is confronted with long-term strategic unease. French President Emmanuel Macron has floated the idea of deploying European peacekeeping troops to Ukraine and urged Europeans to “muscle up.” Trump’s conciliatory stance toward Putin has stoked fears that the US may be drifting from its traditional commitments to Europe and Ukraine.
The Ukraine war is as much about the future of Ukraine as it is about the future of the post-Cold War European security architecture. Putin is clear about what he wants and he is going all out for it. Europe is stuck between its dependence on the US and its security imperative. The US under Trump seems to have no real comprehension about the long-term implications of his push to get the Nobel Peace Prize by ending the war in Ukraine. Ukraine is fast becoming a symbol of the helplessness of a weak nation desperately trying to preserve its dignity while the strong are doing what they can.
Trump’s unique ability to marginalise American partners and placate the nation’s adversaries continues to shape the contours of the Ukraine war. The next few weeks would be decisive as Trump plans to roll the dice in his search for the elusive peace in Ukraine.
The writer is vice president-Studies and Foreign Policy, Observer Research Foundation.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of FinancialExpress.com. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.