Trump’s One Goal at the Alaska Summit: End the Ukraine War

The meeting is a win for the Russian leader, since it will be hard for Ukraine and the Europeans to demonize someone invited to visit the United States, even one of its most distant regions.

Moreover, the meeting suggests that Trump retains unusual respect for Putin. The American leader is likely looking forward to this meeting more than his gatherings with the European allies.

Ukraine War: What Happens in Alaska Won’t Stay in Alaska
Still, Trump deserves credit for trying where Joe Biden was almost entirely AWOL.

While serving in Congress, the latter backed the expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders, despite ample warning of Moscow’s hostile reaction.

While vice president and president, he acted as NATO’s “reassurer-in-chief,” alleviating pressure on the European allies to take over responsibility for their own defense.

As president, he refused to negotiate even when Putin threatened military action. Then his administration apparently joined the United Kingdom in discouraging Kyiv from negotiating with Russia early in the war (though the importance of this advice is disputed).

Unfortunately, Washington and its allies were consistently arrogant and reckless, and they share blame for the conflict’s enormous death and destruction.

Today there is no end in sight. The Russian military continues to make steady though costly progress. While we famously see through a glass darkly, Kyiv is daily losing lives, land, and leverage. At the same time, Moscow’s army grows, along with the government’s ambitions and demands. Ending the war is an imperative. Hence Trump’s admittedly maladroit effort at peacemaking. Indeed, even he is downplaying the likely result, saying that “This is really a feel-out meeting.” He explained: “We’re going to see what the parameters are, and then I’m going to call up President [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy and the European leaders right after the meeting.”

Moreover, “I’m going to tell them what kind of a deal—I’m not going to make a deal. It’s not up to me to make a deal.” There is even speculation that he might walk out if dissatisfied with Putin’s response, rather like he did when meeting North Korea’s Kim Jong-un in Hanoi. Still, Trump has much as stake in the summit’s success. The essential point is that Trump, unlike his European counterparts, is asking Moscow what it would take to end the war: “I think if it weren’t for me, he would not be even talking to anybody else right now.”

Yet Trump has been greeted by caterwauling across Europe. Of course, Russia’s invasion was immoral and unjust. Of course, the Putin government should halt the war and withdraw its forces. Of course, it is outrageous for Moscow to reap material rewards for its aggression. Of course, someone, somewhere should rescue Ukraine, rebuff Russia, reassure Europe, and restore peace. As well as make the lion lie down with the lamb.

This is moralizing on the cheap. Despite the pious postering, those who are most vocal offer no practical strategy for achieving their ends. At least it is understandable when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky insists that his government will yield no territory: “Ukrainians will not give their land to an occupier.” Unfortunately, however, Russia occupies a fifth of his country, which his administration has no prospect of recovering, absent America’s entry into the conflict. Despite the preparation of various territorial maps and talk of land swaps leading up to the summit, they bear no relation to reality on the ground.

The Europe Factor…
European governments have less justification for promoting fantasies. For instance, Kaja Kallas, who passes for the European Union’s foreign minister, proclaimed: “Transatlantic unity, support to Ukraine and pressure on Russia is how we will end this war and prevent future Russian aggression in Europe.” Alas, after three and a half years of war, no policymaker can take such platitudinous drivel seriously.

Yet, the reaction in Kyiv and across Europe to Trump’s announcement of the summit was essentially one of horror. The 27 EU members, united, sans Hungary, issued a statement in advance of the summit. Unfortunately, they have no solution for a conflict that has caused such an effusion of blood and waste of resources.

Diplomacy has failed, but then, European states rejected negotiations before the war and refused to engage Moscow once the conflict raged. Members of the Global South then rejected the West’s sanctimonious entreaties—from countries that had engaged in lawless aggression, only a few years ago dismantling Serbia and invading Iraq, and backed murderous attacks by others, most recently by Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Economics was supposed to save Ukraine on the cheap. Alas, economic threats did not deter Moscow. Economic sanctions did not defeat Moscow. Demands that the rest of the world join the allies’ economic war only elicited charges of hypocrisy, especially from those who had suffered at their hands. For instance, when challenged over its continuing oil purchases from Russia, India responded by unkindly pointing to billions of dollars in American and European dealings with the same.

Despite European states’ increasingly apocalyptic rhetoric, that Russia, supposedly just one sanction away from economic collapse, threatens to overrun the entire continent if it conquers the Donbass, they are not prepared to take the only step that might work: go to war. NATO, led by the US, lied to Ukraine from 2008 and 2022, issuing pious promises about the latter’s eventual membership in NATO that were never intended to be fulfilled.

Today, Kyiv is a little closer to membership than when Russia invaded. And no one believes NATO will induct the former, certainly not as long as Trump is president. In practice, virtually no one, understandably, wants to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. Although the Baltic states are particularly generous in proposing war plans for America to implement—most notably, air and naval operations for which they have no capabilities—few other member governments are inclined to follow suit. Those which advocate introducing peacekeeping troops insist on an American security guarantee, in hopes of deterring a Russian challenge. Meanwhile, Ukrainian cities are wrecked and people are killed. The Europeans are ostentatiously preening while using—and destroying—Ukraine to weaken Russia.

Nevertheless, eight decades after World War II, European leaders still insist that Washington do the heavy lifting. Security guarantees—from Washington. A promise to go to war—from Washington. Manpower—from Washington. Materiel—from Washington. Which today forces the Europeans to humble and humiliate themselves before Trump, who most privately detest. Of course, their distaste is understandable, given his flaws as a diplomat, his many idiosyncrasies, inconsistencies, irrationalities, and inanities. Still, he holds center stage because Europe allows him to do so.

The continent has repeatedly demonstrated that it is a market, not a Weltmacht. Europeans long enthusiastically, even joyfully, subcontracted their defense to America. They saved money and perhaps blood but sacrificed respect and honor. And lost any reason for US leaders to pay more than superficial attention to Europeans’ opinions on security matters, including over their own defense.

Why should Washington treat seriously, let alone equally, the opinions of Europe, whether “new” or “old”? In recent years countries that once dominated the globe proved ill-equipped to address the implosion of Yugoslavia and even Libya, running out of missiles in a conflict that would count as but a minor skirmish in Ukraine. Today, a decade after Moscow annexed Crimea and NATO members declared the need to increase military outlays, several leading states continue to lag behind, praising Trump, manipulating statistics, and making unenforceable promises, with deadlines set long after Trump will leave office. If countries like Italy and Spain barely bother to maintain modern militaries, why should Americans deploy armies and so much more in the continent’s defense?

The Big Summit…
Regarding the upcoming presidential summit, Europeans are urging Washington to take the lead on Ukraine as long as it is their way.

European leaders scheduled an emergency video call with Trump in advance and various conversations among themselves. They insist that “the path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine.” The EU formally stated: “A just and lasting peace that brings stability and security must respect international law, including the principles of independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and that international borders must not be changed by force.”

All wonderful boilerplate that is true in an idealized world centered in Brussels, but irrelevant to the brutal battlefield realities across Ukraine. Are European governments prepared to turn their rhetoric into action? Trump should not and is in no position to impose a plan on Ukraine. However, he should make clear that the US is exiting the conflict. That would leave the war up to Ukraine and its European backers. They would be free to take over from America, providing money, intelligence, weapons, and even troops, if desired. They have committed to covering funding for Ukraine, but only with Washington involved. Are they prepared to do so without the US? That is, behave like adults who lead serious nations and genuinely believe they face an existential threat. If not, they should expect to be ignored in Washington.

Vice President JD Vance recently declared that “We’re done with the funding of the Ukraine war business.” Trump should end not just American funding of but also participation in the proxy war-plus in which the US is a de facto belligerent, providing weapons and intelligence used to kill Russians.

Such a policy is dangerous in the best of times, but especially when employed against a nuclear power over interests it views as existential. Indeed, the usual suspects in Washington would never accept Moscow boasting about killing American generals and sinking American ships. Escalation, both horizontal and vertical, has been avoided because Putin believes he is winning. If that changed, Americans might find themselves in a continental if not global nuclear war that only Zelensky might desire.

What Happens Next for Ukraine?
At the same time, Trump should use the summit to begin the restoration of US-Russian diplomatic and economic ties. Understandably, Moscow hopes for this result. But so should Washington. Indeed, Trump’s aides suggest the possibility of a return visit to Russia. America’s proxy war has turned Moscow hostile globally, actively undermining American policy in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Perhaps most worrisome is its aid to North Korea, which might include technical assistance for the latter’s missile and nuclear programs, which are aimed at the US. The Biden administration’s policy also acted as a strong shove of Russia into China’s arms.

In practice, Moscow is unlikely to fully abandon its new relationships and dismantle its new domestic industries. However, with time and effort Washington might draw Moscow back at least a bit toward the West. The effort is warranted, given the disastrous failure of current efforts to isolate Russia.

Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine cannot be justified. As Zelensky insists, “The Ukrainian people deserve peace.” However, the invasion occurred, and the war continues. Washington should take the lead in ending the conflict and cleaning up a geopolitical mess that it helped create. For his effort to do so, Trump deserves credit. Now it is up to him to deliver.