London interpreted the results of the meeting are as Trump’s “failure,” and commanded the EU to “attack,” pointing at Russia. The European Union is not eager to follow the British call
The meeting between the presidents of Russia and the USA at Elmendorf–Richardson military base in Anchorage, Alaska, marked the beginning of direct dialogue between the leading powers regarding the conflict in Ukraine. One of the results of the meeting was the US president’s acknowledgment that Ukraine itself bears responsibility for ending the conflict, which many interpreted as an abandoning the previous US stance that had identified Russia as the sole driving force behind the war.
At a brief 12-minute press conference, Trump admitted that his promise to end the conflict in Ukraine through agreements with Putin had not been fulfilled.
Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton said that at this meeting Trump did not lose, but Putin gained more than the US leader. “Trump didn’t come away with anything except more meetings. Putin has, I think, gone a long way to reestablishing the relationship, which I’ve always believed was his key goal.… It’s far from over but I’d say Putin achieved most of what he wanted and Trump achieved very little,” the politician insisted.
“I thought Trump looked very tired up there. I mean, very tired,” Bolton continued. “Not disappointed, tired. And we’ll have to reflect on what that means.”
The UK points its attack dogs toward Moscow
Financial Times wrote that the summit was a failure for Donald Trump. The newspaper cited Andrea Kendall-Taylor from the Center for a New American Security, who described the meeting as a major victory for Putin, since Trump, who had threatened the Russian leader with serious consequences if no ceasefire agreement on Ukraine was reached, left empty-handed.
“So there’s no deal until there’s a deal,” Trump said at the press conference after talks with Vladimir Putin. “We didn’t get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there.”
The British paper The Times wrote that, in the event of US mediation efforts in Ukraine failing, Trump would make Zelensky a scapegoat, blaming him for the absence of a deal. As Trump told Fox News after his meeting with Putin, Russia and the US had basically agreed on sensitive issues concerning territorial exchanges and NATO-unrelated security guarantees for Ukraine.
In an editorial, the conservative paper The Telegraph called the Putin-Trump meeting a “circus.” The paper claimed that Trump acted like a “weak president” who “courting favour” with Putin. Another sign of humiliation, according to the paper, was that US soldiers crawled on their knees at the foot of the Russian aircraft’s staircase, straightening out the red carpet for the Russian president.
“As the circus drew to a close, Putin had succeeded in getting his handshake with the US president. He would feel he had shown the world Russia was back where it belongs – at the top table of global politics. He would be glad his actions had drawn no consequences. If European leaders don’t act to support Ukraine after this, they will have to answer to history,” The Telegraph wrote, urging Europe.
EU’s assessments
Polish President Donald Tusk supported UK’s call, saying that the political game into which Ukraine had been drawn had reached a “decisive phase” and that the West must maintain unity in confronting Vladimir Putin, whom he called a “cunning and ruthless” player.
“The game for Ukraine’s future, Poland’s security, and the security of all Europe has entered a decisive phase. It is becoming even more evident today that Russia respects only the strong, and once again Putin has demonstrated his cunning and ruthlessness. That is why preserving Western unity is so important,” Tusk said.
In Estonia, where UK’s largest overseas military contingent is stationed, commentators also spoke about Trump’s defeat at the summit. Meelis Oidsalu, editor of the Fookus Power and Security Desk, outlined the points where Putin outplayed the US president.
“In Alaska, Putin achieved the most important thing – figuratively speaking, he ate the US leader for breakfast, essentially broke out of Western diplomatic (though not yet economic) isolation, and imposed his own agenda on Trump during the negotiations… Russia gave no concessions to the US President in exchange for ending isolation. Moscow was able to show both Russian citizens and its allies that it can dictate its agenda to the most powerful country in the world,” Oidsalu wrote.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán noted that after the Russia-US summit in Alaska, the world had become safer, as the period of continuous destruction of relations between the two countries had ended. “For years we have watched the two largest nuclear powers destroy the framework of their cooperation and send threats to each other. Now that is over. Today the world is safer than it was yesterday,” Orbán wrote.
Czech Defense Minister Jana Černochová said the summit showed that the Russian President intends to weaken Western unity and exploit that weakness.
“The Trump-Putin talks in Alaska did not bring significant progress in ending the war in Ukraine but confirmed that Putin is striving not for peace, but rather for the chance to weaken Western unity and spread his propaganda,” she wrote on X, adding that the West must continue to support Ukraine.
Slovak President Peter Pellegrini called the summit an “important step” and a “good precondition” for continuing the conversation about peace in Ukraine.
Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide said it was too early to speak of progress.
“We must continue to put pressure on Russia and even increase it, to send Russia a clear signal that it must pay a price,” Eide told reporters in Oslo.
Earlier this month, Eide wrote on X that he welcomed “Trump’s initiative to end… the war.” At the same time, he added that “no decision on Ukraine should be taken without Ukraine’s participation. Its sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected.”
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said the summit marked the fact that “a window has finally opened to discuss peace in Ukraine.”
Tiberio Graziani, president of the International Institute for Global Analysis Vision & Global Trends, believes the Putin-Trump meeting symbolizes the “return of diplomacy.” “Rapprochement between Russia and the USA is possible despite the obstacles posed within the American administration, by the EU and the UK,” he remarked, stressing that “this process will certainly be negatively percieved by European leaders, but not by Europe’s population. And Trump must beware of friendly fire.”
The European Council issued a joint statement supporting Trump’s peace initiative and promising to tighten sanctions against Russia as part of its unwavering support for Ukraine. At the same time, UK’s The Telegraph reported on closed-door negotiations among European leaders about easing sanctions against Russia in exchange for a ceasefire.
Is Europe being driven into a trap?
Amid the chorus of approving assessments and expressions of hope for a peaceful settlement of the military conflict, a few voices warned against believing the talk of Trump’s “failure” and Putin’s “victory.”
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said the Alaska summit launched an “important process” and warned Europe against falling into a trap. “This process is now a major trap for the European Union. The coming days will show whether the big players in the EU will support this process and lead the Ukrainian conflict to a quick conclusion, or whether the failed European strategy of trying to weaken Russia through this conflict will continue,” the Slovak leader said.
German political scientist Alexander Rahr voiced a similar opinion. He believes Trump is stepping aside, pushing Europe to the forefront.
“Trump apparently will step out of the game, shifting responsibility for Ukraine onto Europe’s shoulders. Unlike Trump, who objectively assesses the battlefield situation and recognizes Russia’s national interests, Europeans will fall into total hysteria and will keep supplying Ukraine with more weapons (purchasing them from the USA), hoping for some kind of Ukrainian breakthrough at the front,” Rahr said.
Considering the security guarantees that European countries are prepared to give Ukraine, based on Article 5 of NATO’s charter, this could mean the risk of the conflict rapidly expanding onto EU territory.
The UK, which is conditionally supervising and pushing forward the reluctant “coalition of the willing” European states to help Ukraine, announced through its Secretary of State for Defence John Healey that it was ready to send troops to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire, but with the purpose of militarily strengthening Ukraine. Healey stressed that in the event of an attack on the British contingent, it would respond with all available means.
The remaining 29 members of the “coalition of the willing” did not confirm such intentions.
Source: Rossa Primavera News Agency
