No New Deal in Alaska
In Alaska, there was a meeting meant to help resolve the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but no new deal emerged. This outcome was expected, especially with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky absent.
US President Donald Trump, who initially desired a ceasefire, changed his stance, which surprised many in Kyiv and Europe. Russia continues to insist that any ceasefire must consider its interests, essentially demanding Ukraine’s submission. This view aligns with what Trump mentioned, hinting at a peace agreement rather than an immediate ceasefire.
Recent comments on social media further complicated matters. Trump noted that “ceasefires often do not hold up,” which clashes with Ukraine’s demand for an unconditional ceasefire, supported by its European allies. This tactic buys time for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who believes he has the upper hand in the ongoing conflict.
Experts like Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, highlighted that Putin seems to have achieved his military goals by avoiding immediate limitations. On the flip side, Ian Bond from the Centre for European Reform stressed that a demand for territorial concessions from Ukraine was unrealistic, emphasizing Zelensky’s strong position.
After the meeting, Trump directly called Zelensky. The call was described as “long and substantive,” and Zelensky plans to visit Washington soon. Since their last meeting in February, much has changed. European allies have been working hard to support Ukraine and prepare Zelensky for this pivotal visit.
Despite the tension, there remains hope that a deal can be reached. UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer acknowledged Trump’s role in moving towards ending the conflict. However, he also pointed out that detailed security guarantees for Ukraine are still necessary.
In recent conversations, the possibility of guarantees outside NATO was discussed, inspired by NATO’s Article 5. However, experts remain skeptical. Ivo Daalder, a former US ambassador to NATO, argued that real protection for Ukraine would likely require NATO membership. That raises concerns about Trump’s actual willingness to engage militarily to support Ukraine.
Current European leaders are holding onto a cautious optimism, hoping for a breakthrough in negotiations. However, questions linger about the future—both Zelensky’s upcoming visit to the US and how the situation will evolve.
As Trump navigates his relationship with Putin, we can’t overlook the fact that each decision affects Ukraine’s future. Social media trends echo sentiments of urgency. More voices are calling for peace, not just from political leaders but also from the general public. It’s clear that all eyes are on these key discussions that could lead to a better future for Ukraine.
For more insights, you can check the Council on Foreign Relations for in-depth analysis on Ukraine’s situation.
