The ongoing Russia-Ukraine war remains one of the most consequential conflicts of the 21st Century. Given Moscow’s longstanding fear of NATO’s eastward expansion, the Kremlin viewed the prospect of Ukraine’s membership in the alliance as a direct threat to its security. For Russian strategists, Ukraine’s westward orientation threatened to dismantle the buffer zone that has historically shielded Russia from European powers. While Russia’s concerns may have some grounding in geopolitical realities, they do not justify the violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. Invading a sovereign country under the pretext of preemptive security ot only destabilised Europe, but also set a dangerous precedent.
Since the war began in February 2022, Ukraine has witnessed staggering destruction. Major cities such as Mariupol and Bakhmut lie in ruins. Millions of people have been displaced and tens of thousands have lost their lives. Civilian casualties continue to mount. Ukraine’s infrastructure ─ from schools to power plants ─ has been devastated. The economic losses for Kyiv are monumental. The World Bank has estimated that reconstruction may take several decades. Importantly, Russia itself has suffered thousands of military deaths, global sanctions, economic isolation and, above all, a diminishing standing in the international community.
Amid this grim backdrop, Donald Trump made Ukraine a central theme of his political comeback. During his presidential campaign, he vowed to “end the war in 24 hours,” claiming that he could persuade both sides to end the conflict. His recent moves demonstrate a mix of diplomatic maneuvering and personal ambition. Beyond foreign policy, Trump appears motivated by potential business interests in Russia, seeing opportunities for personal gain and corporate expansion once relations are normalised. This dual-track approach, blending national policy with individual gain, frames the complex context of the recently held Alaska summit with Vladimir Putin.
The summit was marked by spectacle and symbolism as well as substantive dialogue. Unlike the more formal Geneva or Helsinki formats of the past, this meeting carried a calculated informality. The choice of Alaska itself was symbolic: geographically proximate to Russia, yet firmly American, it underscored both competition and the possibility of cooperation. The two leaders reportedly discussed Ukraine at length, with Trump urging Putin to consider a ceasefire as a step toward broader negotiations. While no binding agreements were signed, the optics suggested an attempt by Trump to project himself as the world’s indispensable dealmaker. Energy security, sanctions and the future of NATO were also touched upon, but the central theme remained how to end the Ukraine conflict without further escalation. Both leaders described their interaction as “productive.” However, details were scarce. This suggested that much of the conversation revolved around some behind-the-scenes bargains.
Predictably, President Trump’s diplomatic style was on full display: transactional, personalised, and improvisational. Rather than relying on career diplomats, he leaned on personal rapport and direct negotiation. Putin, a seasoned tactician, welcomed the platform to present Russia’s narrative to the world while signaling that Moscow still has options beyond endless warfare. Though both the leaders seemed to agree on the need to reduce tensions and seek ceasefire in Ukraine, each also aimed to secure domestic gains in terms of regime survival and stability.
Trump appears motivated by potential business interests in Russia, seeing opportunities for personal and corporate expansion once relations are normalised. His dual-track approach, blending national policy with individual gain, frames the complex context of the recently held Alaska summit with Vladimir Putin.
In the aftermath of the Alaska meeting, global attention quickly shifted to Washington, where Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and several EU/ NATO leaders gathered for consultation with Trump. This post-summit huddle revealed the deep unease in Europe. President Trump has already unsettled his NATO allies by pressuring them to raise defence budgets, imposing tariffs on European goods and warning that American support cannot be taken for granted. Nonetheless, the German chancellor and French president reaffirmed their commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, particularly their opposition to ceding Russian-speaking eastern territories to Moscow. They both face growing domestic discontent, rising inflation, energy costs and public fatigue with the war. These pressures make it harder for European leaders to maintain a firm line, even as they voice solidarity with Kyiv.
Based on the Alaska summit, it seems likely that President Trump will try to convince President Zelensky to accept an informal concession ─ allowing Russia de facto control over Donbas and parts of eastern Ukraine ─ for a ceasefire. While politically controversial, this approach might reflect the hard realities of the battlefield. Ukraine, despite Western aid, has struggled to regain the occupied territories. Russia, though economically jolted, has shown no sign of military exhaustion. A negotiated pause, even on Moscow’s terms, may appear to be the only path to halt further bloodshed. Selling such an outcome can bolster Trump’s image as a pragmatic peacemaker, even if it compromises Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
Such a bargain, however, raises difficult ethical and strategic questions. Will it be seen as rewarding aggression and embolden future violations of international law? Will it affect the credibility of NATO and the EU in defence of smaller member states? Can this open a window for longer-term stability with Ukraine pivoting toward reconstruction and integration into Western institutions, while Russia secures its buffer zone? These questions underscore the complexity of translating summit theatrics into sustainable peace.
From a realist perspective, Trump’s calculation is not entirely without logic. Great powers often settle conflicts through spheres of influence. Historical precedents ─ from Yalta in 1945 to Cold War détente ─ illustrate that imperfect deals sometimes prevent larger conflagrations. Yet, from a liberal viewpoint, compromising on Ukraine’s sovereignty risks dismantling the very principles of the post-1945 world order.
For Europe, the challenge is pressing. Leaders in Berlin, Paris and Brussels must balance strategic commitments to Ukraine with their domestic political realities. Inflation has eroded public confidence, energy insecurity continues to weigh on industries and populist movements are gaining ground by calling for an end to “foreign wars.” Even within the NATO, unity is fraying. While Eastern European states, especially Poland and the Baltics, have argued for continued firmness against Moscow, Western European states are increasingly advocating the need for a compromise.
For war-ravaged Ukraine, the options are stark. Accepting any loss of territory risks undermining national morale and could fracture domestic politics. Yet, the continuation of war without significant battlefield victories may prove even more costly. President Zelensky’s leadership will be tested not only by the pressure from the White House and his NATO allies but also by the expectations of the Ukrainian people who have endured immense losses for the past three and a half years. If he chooses compromise, he will need to frame it as a tactical pause to preserve the nation’s survival.
The Alaska summit could be best read not as a breakthrough but as a signal of Trump’s intended trajectory in terms of transactional diplomacy that blends American national interest, European burden-sharing and his business ambitions. So far, the war in Ukraine remains far from a resolution, but the direction is clear: compromise, however unpalatable, is on the table. If Kyiv accepts the terms, the war may end.
Fatigued by wars, the world desperately needs not just the cessation of hostilities but also the rebuilding of trust and cooperation. Peace, economic interdependence and cultural exchange are the only durable foundations for harmony among the nation-states. Without that any summit, no matter how grand, risks being just another performance on the stage of great-power rivalry.
The writer has a PhD in political science from Heidelberg University and post-doc experience at University of California, Berkeley. He is a DAAD, FDDI and Fulbright fellow and an associate professor at Lahore School of Economics. He can be reached at ejaz.bhattygmail.com.