What Is Unfolding Ahead of the Event?

In the lead-up to the highly anticipated meeting expected to reshape the global geopolitical landscape between the U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, the diplomatic atmosphere across Europe has grown more urgent than ever.

While the White House frames the event as an effort to “end the war” between Russia and Ukraine, multiple sources suggest that the negotiations may touch on highly sensitive terms, including the possibility of territorial exchanges in return for peace.

This scenario has prompted European leaders to deliver a unified message: any peace process must involve Ukraine and uphold the principle of national sovereignty, particularly the rule that “borders must not be altered by force.” They have expressed steadfast support for Ukraine, emphasizing that lasting peace in the war-torn country cannot be achieved without Kyiv’s direct participation.

Why Europe Is More United Than Ever

This unity primarily stems from a core concern for continental security. Europe has endured bloody border conflicts in the 20th century, and the greatest lesson learned is that no new precedent of altering borders by military force can be allowed to stand without a response. If Ukraine were compelled to cede territory in exchange for peace, the message sent to the world would be that any nation with sufficient military strength could impose a new status quo through force. This would not only endanger Ukraine, but also trigger a domino effect for other countries, including those in Central Asia.

Moreover, strategic considerations mean that Europe cannot remain on the sidelines. A settlement negotiated solely between the United States and Russia would diminish the EU’s and NATO’s roles in shaping regional security. From the perspective of capitals such as Berlin and Paris, keeping Ukraine at the center of negotiations is not only about protecting Kyiv, but also about maintaining Europe’s influence and voice in matters of continental security.

Domestic political dynamics also play a significant role. Many European countries particularly those bordering Russia or formerly under Soviet influence still have strong public support for aiding Ukraine. If leaders were to appear weak or accept an agreement unfavorable to Kyiv, they would face fierce backlash from both the public and opposition parties. Thus, taking a firm public stance serves both as a defense of principle and as a form of political self-preservation.

Risks if Ukraine Is Excluded from the Negotiating Table

The greatest risk is that Ukraine would lose its ability to determine the fate of its own territory and political future. If an agreement were reached between the United States and Russia without Kyiv’s consent, Ukraine would be confronted with a fait accompli, making any effort to restore its territory virtually impossible. Furthermore, excluding Ukraine from the peace process could erode trust in international alliances that have pledged to support Kyiv. Should these commitments fail to materialize, the credibility of such organizations would suffer serious damage, and other member states might also question the actual value of security guarantees.

Efforts Toward a Ceasefire Agreement to Restore Peace

A month-long U.S. led effort to secure a ceasefire in Ukraine has so far reached an impasse. Kyiv has agreed in principle, but the Kremlin remains adamant about maintaining its own terms.

President Donald Trump issued an ultimatum, warning of additional sanctions against Russia and the imposition of secondary tariffs on countries purchasing Russian oil if Moscow refuses to accept the deal. However, the White House declined to answer questions regarding whether such sanctions could take effect as soon as the following day.

Earlier this week, the Kremlin reiterated its demands that Ukraine relinquish part of its territory, abandon its bid to join NATO, and accept limitations on its military capabilities in exchange for Russia’s withdrawal from the remainder of the country. Particularly infuriating to Kyiv is Moscow’s insistence that it cede eastern and southern regions that Russia has claimed to have annexed, despite not having full military control over them.

For the Kremlin, “the mere fact that the U.S. continues to delay any significant action and has agreed to arrange a meeting with the U.S. President is already considered a victory.”

What to Watch in the Coming Period

The most critical factor is whether Zelenskyy will be invited to participate in the meeting or, at the very least, whether a formal consultation mechanism will be established. In parallel, statements from the White House and the Kremlin regarding the criteria and objectives of the negotiations will serve as key indicators for assessing the comprehensiveness and fairness of the process. The official responses from the EU and NATO immediately after the meeting will also reveal the extent of Europe’s actual influence on the outcome.

(Cre: CNBC)