On August 15, a pivotal meeting took place between Presidents Trump and Putin in Alaska, aimed at addressing the ongoing war in Ukraine, a conflict that has seen the US and Russia embroiled in military action—Russia through direct intervention and the US through indirect support of Ukraine.
As Ukraine faces the increasing threat of a catastrophic military defeat that arms deliveries and financial support can no longer avert, there looms a temptation among European NATO states to escalate military involvement, risking dangerous escalation and direct NATO participation in the conflict.
Against this backdrop, the Trump-Putin meeting carries immense implications for the quest for peace, as underscored by the banner proclaiming “Pursuing Peace” during their joint press conference.
While it may be premature to evaluate the full extent of the meeting’s outcomes—given the scant details shared by both leaders and the absence of a final communiqué—four critical developments are emerging that could steer the trajectory of the war towards a peaceful resolution.
Firstly, after years of relegating Putin to the status of an international pariah and striving to diminish Russia’s influence to that of a regional power through the Ukraine war, the United States is now acknowledging Putin’s status as the leader of a significant power. Meeting Trump in Alaska symbolically positioned the two leaders as equals, a notable shift given that European and Ukrainian officials, aligned with the pro-war sentiments, were conspicuously absent from this dialogue.
This alone hints at a realignment in the power dynamics of the conflict, designating a clear winner and loser.
Secondly, the direct interaction between the leaders of the US and Russia has notably improved the prospects for a diplomatic resolution to the war. The immediate threat of escalating violence, including potential nuclear confrontation, seems somewhat mitigated for the moment.
Thirdly, it appears increasingly probable that the US will initiate a military withdrawal from the conflict following the meeting. This withdrawal would significantly restrict EU states and the UK in their ability to sustain the war effort or escalate it further, potentially easing the path toward a peaceful resolution for Ukraine, even at the cost of deeper divisions between the US and its European allies.
Lastly, while the US has not fully abandoned its calls for a ceasefire, there seems to be a growing recognition that addressing the fundamental root causes of the conflict is essential for achieving lasting peace.
The challenge arises from the divergent perspectives on what these root causes are, creating a rift between the US and Russia on one side, and Ukraine and the majority of EU states on the other. Although no concrete proposals were put forward in Alaska regarding ceasefire terms or peace negotiations, Trump’s lack of insistence on an immediate, unconditional ceasefire signals a willingness to engage with Russia’s pivotal concerns, including issues surrounding Ukraine’s neutrality, Russian access to the Black Sea, and the safeguarding of pro-Russian populations within Ukraine.
For President Putin, these initial discussions represent a substantial diplomatic victory, while they simultaneously acknowledge Russian security fears regarding NATO expansion into Ukraine and American advances into the Black Sea. Moreover, the prospect of significant portions of the pro-Russian population possibly falling under Russian jurisdiction could reshape geopolitical realities.
For President Trump, this shift might enable the US to sidestep the ramifications of Ukraine’s impending military defeat. The US has historically taken similar approaches in past conflicts such as Vietnam, Afghanistan under Trump’s administration, and also in Iraq and Libya. This aligns with a prevailing sentiment among many Americans advocating for a focus on domestic issues over overseas military entanglements.
In avoiding military escalation in Ukraine, Trump would respond to the anti-establishment ideals that propelled his election campaign.
Contrastingly, the situation looks markedly different for European nations, particularly those spearheading a five-point counterproposal for negotiations, including leaders such as Merz, Macron, and Starmer. These countries remain entrenched in their own rhetoric surrounding the war, characterizing it as an unprovoked act of aggression by Russia, which leads to a refusal to consider concessions.
This mindset does not take into account the implications of NATO expansion and disregards the realities shaped by the conflict.
The insistence that the European states can maintain their stance while financing the war is doubly naive for the leaders advocating it, given that they must also grapple with the enormous costs of rearming their own forces, rebuilding Ukraine, and integrating it into the EU. This economic strain poses challenges to the already fragile unity among EU nations.
Ukrainians must come to terms with the fact that Europe, amid these dynamics, will likely not— and realistically cannot—rescue them.
The repeated assertion from leaders like Merz, Macron, and Starmer that continuing the conflict is preferable to an “unfair” peace ignores the harsh reality of life and death for Ukrainians. The notion that prolonged military support will enhance Ukraine’s negotiating position has proven fallacious, as the situation has only worsened for Ukraine on the battlefield.
To protect its national interests and alleviate the suffering of its citizens, Ukraine must seek to maintain the viability of its armed forces while preventing further territorial losses. The time has come for Ukraine to prioritize peace instead of continuing a conflict that further devastates the nation.
The recent negotiations involving the US and Russia provide Ukraine a unique opportunity; however, it hinges on their ability to confront the new realities of their situation. Ukraine should seek productive relations with its neighbors, an approach that could unlock reconstruction funding, spur investment, and enhance trade routes, thereby bolstering security in the region.
Both Russia and the US have strong incentives for pursuing peace, which positions Ukraine to leverage this moment.
The eastern territories currently claimed by Russia were allocated to Ukraine relatively recently in 1922, with Crimea having been transferred in 1954. The loss of these territories would not equate to the end of Ukraine. In fact, it could pave the way for a more unified and cohesive Ukrainian state.
It is essential not to sacrifice entire generations of young Ukrainians or risk further depopulation over regions where hostilities prevail.
Accepting ongoing destruction for the sake of claims over contested lands is not a viable solution. The focus must now shift toward securing the best potential outcome for future generations of Ukrainians through negotiations with both the US and Russia.
Even without these contentious eastern territories, Kyiv will continue being one of Europe’s cultural epicenters, sharing origins with the Byzantine Empire. Odessa will remain a crucial European port, linking Ukraine to diverse regions such as Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Southern Europe. In peaceful times, Kharkiv can serve as a vital connector to Russia, while Lviv will consistently act as a gateway to the European Union.
Ultimately, ensuring a secure and peaceful future for Ukraine should be a common interest shared by all global stakeholders, including the US, Russia, the European Union, China, and India. Achieving this through a peaceful resolution must become the unified goal for all parties involved in the conflict.
image source from：meer
