Previously, he had occasionally implied that Ukraine brought the conflict upon itself by applying for NATO and EU membership. After the summit on August 15, he took this further. Trump had previously agreed with European allies that Russia and Ukraine must achieve a ceasefire to end the bloodshed before negotiating a peace deal, but he reversed his position, siding with President Putin.
“Trump’s abandonment of the ceasefire pursuit, along with the absence of any mention of the ‘severe consequences’ he had once threatened to impose on Russia if the fighting didn’t stop, has pushed the alliance into a precarious position,” said James G. Stavridis, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. This is the kind of division European leaders are desperately trying to avoid. NATO’s new Secretary-General, Rutte, has frequently visited Washington to reinforce the transatlantic alliance. He is determined to prevent the kind of public rift that almost occurred when Trump nearly withdrew the U.S. from NATO, calling it an "obsolete" alliance during his first term.
At the June NATO summit, Rutte worked to convince members to commit 5% of GDP to defense. This brought Trump an early victory and proved that Europe is now more serious about shouldering its defense responsibilities. Trump left the summit praising NATO.
European leaders later crafted a weapons purchasing program for Ukraine to convince Trump from a financial angle. In this scenario, the U.S. would still supply weapons to Ukraine but without any financial losses.
This strategy worked until a few weeks ago when Trump criticized Putin for failing to show genuine interest in negotiations and continuing to attack Ukraine. He issued ultimatums to Moscow and threatened secondary sanctions on countries purchasing Russian oil.
For the first time since Trump’s second term began, U.S. and European approaches, including threats of sanctions and military-economic pressure, nearly aligned. In mid-week, European leaders spoke with Trump, and he agreed to maintain his stance with Russia. However, this unified stance was shattered in Alaska.
"Everyone agreed that the best way to end this terrible conflict between Russia and Ukraine is to go straight to a peace agreement," President Trump wrote on social media on August 16.
Trump’s constant reversal of positions contrasts sharply with Putin’s unwavering determination to achieve his campaign goals in Ukraine. “Peace will come when we achieve our goals,” said the Russian President at the end of 2023.
Even then, Putin subtly signaled his readiness to discuss a ceasefire, but only if it freezes the current frontlines, meaning Ukraine would have to cede around 20% of its territory to Russia. His proposals were rejected at the time.
But now, as Russian forces make significant gains, Putin appears less interested in a ceasefire. This reality shows that a peace agreement is unlikely to materialize anytime soon. Putin seems to be calculating that the best strategy is to prolong negotiations and delay any quick ceasefire.
As European and American officials gather at the White House, there will be much to discuss. Europe must find a way to get President Trump to agree to specific security guarantees for Kyiv, including the deployment of peacekeeping forces in Ukraine.
In discussions with European leaders after the Alaska summit, President Trump hinted that he might be willing to participate in such an effort, although many believe he will contribute intelligence from the U.S., not military forces.
On August 17 in London, after a video call with other European leaders, UK Prime Minister Starmer issued a statement praising President Trump for his “commitment to providing security guarantees for Ukraine.”
The message from British leadership seems aimed at binding the U.S. president to this effort. The statement reaffirmed that the UK and other European countries are willing to “deploy security forces as soon as hostilities end to help protect the skies, waters, and rebuild Ukraine’s armed forces.”
However, whether this effort succeeds depends largely on the U.S., and Washington has yet to make any such definitive statement.