\u201cZelensky and Europeans, take responsibility for the final decisions\u201d or alternatively \u201cstumbled on the really difficult ones\u201d\u2026 These are probably the two most representative phrases that describe what happened at the Trump-Putin summit at the American air base in Alaska. The statements of the two leaders reflected the desire of both to cooperate and not burn bridges of communication. But they could not hide the impasse on the issue of a ceasefire agreement in Ukraine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ultimately, the green light for such a development should indeed be given by Ukrainian leader Zelensky, whose country is -typically- the second, after Russia, belligerent. The next meeting, if it takes place, will be hosted in Moscow, following a relevant invitation extended by Vladimir Putin at the end of the statements, who in this way conveyed and \u201cin practice\u201d his interest in continuing the effort to find a solution that will lead to a ceasefire. But always under conditions\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Putin made every effort to convince that he is \u201cgenuinely interested\u201d in ending the war, which he even described as a tragedy. Therefore, with this phraseology, he implied that this war was \u201cimposed\u201d on Russia. In order for there to be an agreement, Putin added that \u201cthe primary causes\u201d that resulted in the war must be eliminated, in an obvious reference to the possibility of Ukraine becoming part of the Atlantic Alliance and, more generally, to NATO\u2019s constant approach to the Russian borders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Russia wants Ukraine as a neutral \u201cbuffer-state\u201d that will intervene between it and the West. At the same time, indirectly expressing that there is a high degree of coincidence of views with the current American administration, he agreed with the argument put forward by Trump, that this war would never have started, if the current American president had managed to renew his first term in the White House\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Understanding for Russian positions, as they are nothing new. Both communicative and substantive arguments could be found that \u201cbuild\u201d Moscow\u2019s argument, as formulated by the leader of the Russian Federation. On the other hand, however, the same reports refer on the one hand to the impasse and on the other hand to the Russian side\u2019s insistence on its red lines. Putin even pointed out those responsible for the Russian approach: \u201cUkraine and Europe should not sabotage the talks,\u201d he said characteristically! So, indirectly, he said that if the US and Russia were alone, an agreement would have been reached!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Hidden message<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n For his part, Trump, on the issue of the Ukrainians and the Europeans, said that these two sides would make the final decision and that he would call them to inform them! This could of course be considered an indirect announcement of economic and diplomatic disengagement by the US, in the event of a disagreement. The White House\u2019s message seems to be: \u201cThere is no way to have a ceasefire without concessions, especially when the adversary has the upper hand militarily. If you disagree, assume the military and economic cost of changing this situation, thus forcing the Russian side\u201d!<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is also interesting that, as the American president spoke of \u201cgreat progress\u201d that was made, but without the two sides being able to reach an agreement. He could not have said anything different. And Putin, for his part, tried to give the talks a value in order to support Trump\u2019s narrative, saying that they are a \u201cstarting point for a solution\u201d. Trump, on the other hand, said that the two of them would like to stop thousands of soldiers per week who will lose their lives in the event of continued conflicts!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another reference by Trump in the statements is interesting: He said that there was an agreement on many points and \u201csome\u201d remain – without agreement -, adding that \u201cone is the most important\u201d, but without naming it. There are two main “candidates”: <\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. <\/strong> The first is the issue of officially changing the borders based on the results of military operations and <\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.<\/strong> The second is the issue of Ukraine’s entry into NATO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Based on the above and since one had to be chosen, the first seems to be a much stronger candidate, since the Trump administration, with its stance towards Russia, does not seem to want to grant Ukraine member state status, since this would oblige the Alliance to become militarily involved in the event of a new war. Especially since the other side includes the issue in its declared red lines. In other words, it is not going to agree to a ceasefire in this case, while Trump is mainly interested in this!<\/p>\n\n\n\n The interest now shifts to whether a middle ground can be found that will lead to a ceasefire. Ukraine\u2019s insistence on NATO membership, although it is not at all likely, is an obstacle because the Russians are asking for guarantees, while accepting the military faits accomplis on the \u201cterritorial\u201d side leads to the classic dilemma for the Ukrainians, which concerns the possibility of increasing losses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With this reasoning, instead of a ceasefire, the war from tomorrow will most likely become much more merciless. Moscow will try to give credibility to its threats by escalating it and at the same time present its presence in Alaska as a gesture of goodwill. Somewhere along the line, the possible use by the US of the diplomatic \u201cpaper\u201d of economic and military withdrawal will play a decisive role\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n