Introduction
The recent summits between Trump and key international leaders, including Putin in Alaska and Zelensky along with European leaders in Washington, have left behind red carpets, headlines, and a crucial takeaway: no agreements were reached. After hours of discussions, the outcome is pomp without results and an ambiguous message about the war’s direction.
Summits Overview
The Alaska summit with Putin and the Washington meeting with Zelensky and European leaders showcased that Putin remains central to global affairs, while also confirming Trump’s rapid deal promise collides with reality.
The Washington gathering allowed European leaders to support Kiev and reiterate their rejection of any hasty compromise. A key idea circulated: security guarantees “similar to Article 5” provided by the US and European partners, without making Ukraine an OTAN member, as a means to deter future aggressions. This translates to Europe’s stance: peace, yes, but not at the cost of creating a strategic rift.
Background and Context
These security guarantees aren’t born in a vacuum. Despite the US-Ukraine bilateral security agreement signed in 2014, structuring military cooperation, consultations in case of future aggression, and sustained support for Ukraine’s defense, there are ongoing discussions to strengthen this framework without making Ukraine an OTAN member. This also recalls that ad hoc guarantees—like those Western nations gave to Russia after the USSR’s collapse, assuring that NATO wouldn’t come “to their door”—can be mere words and contribute to the underlying causes of this war.
Trump’s Negotiation Style
The political reading is less mysterious than morbid, and it’s crucial for Trump’s transactional approach. He previously hinted that “both sides” would need to cede territory—a notion neither Kiev nor Moscow accept today—and that the NATO file could be replaced by an alternative guarantees scheme, more focused on Europe than the US. This aligns with his negotiator instinct: declaring a “middle ground” as victory, even if the cost is borne by third parties.
The uncertainty remains about what Trump discussed and could discuss with Putin. Speculations abound; however, the reality is that there’s no immediate ceasefire, and pressure grows to redraw maps.
Brutal Realism
In a Trump-centric view, the reality is that Moscow doesn’t need to win to dictate terms; it’s enough for the West to fear the cost of further escalation. Europe, disciplined and vocal, is determined not to negotiate the conflict’s resolution without Kiev or at their backs. Their solidarity gesture confesses a dependence on the situation.
Even though Trump will continue attempting to position himself as a triumphant peacemaker, it’s increasingly clear that he’s giving Russia space to “win” even when they haven’t, perhaps not consolidating all the territory they desire or their “new security architecture.” However, Moscow might emerge well-positioned despite the infractions. They’ve gained valuable experience in various contemporary warfare forms, held back Europe strategically (forcing reactions instead of decisions), and reveled in showcasing a fractured global system that Western nations claim to safeguard, unable to stop Russia without their consent.
Understanding what’s next for the world requires both patience and courage. The stakes are high, and the game is on.
Key Questions and Answers
- Q: What were the outcomes of the Trump-Putin and Trump-Zelensky summits? A: No agreements were reached, and the meetings resulted in pomp without tangible results or a clear message about the war’s direction.
- Q: What security guarantees were discussed? A: European leaders proposed security guarantees “similar to Article 5” provided by the US and European partners without making Ukraine an OTAN member.
- Q: How does Trump’s negotiation style play a role in these summits? A: Trump’s transactional approach suggests he aims for a “middle ground” as victory, even if the cost is borne by third parties.
- Q: What does the brutal realism in these summits imply? A: Moscow doesn’t need to win to dictate terms; it’s enough for the West to fear further escalation costs. Europe is determined not to negotiate without Kiev, showcasing dependence on the situation.
*The author is a historian by the UNAM, Master in Security Studies from Georgetown University, and Master in Communication from Johns Hopkins University. She is an associate of COMEXI.
