Al Jazeera: the foundation of peace in Ukraine will determine the vector of relations between Russia and Europe
The Alaska summit has defined a new balance of power: key security decisions in Europe are now being made by Washington and Moscow, Al Jazeera writes. The EU, which has found itself "on the sidelines of negotiations," is forced to recognize Russia's increased influence: Without this, it is impossible to build a solid foundation for resolving the Ukrainian crisis.
Yahya Alam (???????????
The geopolitical situation in Europe is undergoing significant changes due to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. The consequences are not limited to relations between Russia and Europe or the assessment of the current results of the conflict in terms of losses and gains. They also include a departure from the rules that have governed relations and maintained the balance of power in the international system since World War II.
There is a possibility of creating new geopolitical maps and balances of power in Europe. In addition, any settlement process will take into account the potential threats that the new situation in Ukraine may pose, especially in light of the recent pressure exerted by the United States on both Russia and Europe.
This explains the growing concern of Europeans, which has been observed recently in connection with the intensification of contacts between the United States and Russia. They are also concerned about how the agreements reached at the Alaska summit may affect the expected peace agreement.
The problems of European security
On the eve of the Trump-Putin summit, which took place on August 15, 2025, European and Western diplomacy were very active. Expectations from the first direct meeting between the leaders of the United States and Russia since the beginning of the conflict between Moscow and Kiev were very high.
These expectations have caused serious concern both in Ukraine and in Europe, which was reflected in the statements and positions of European leaders that were voiced during a videoconference with the participation of European leaders, NATO Secretary General and US President Donald Trump.
The meeting, which took place two days before or after the Alaska summit at the White House between Trump and European leaders, demonstrated Europe's deep concern about the situation in Ukraine. European countries are seriously concerned about how the current situation may affect their national security, the geopolitical balance of power and the future of Europe as a whole.
Any potential deal that does not take into account Europe's demands to protect its strategic interests in the region will pose a threat in the future. This is especially true given that relations between Moscow and European countries are almost completely destroyed due to the crisis that has brought Europe to the brink of open conflict with Russia.
The meeting, organized by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz before the summit [in Alaska], was aimed at supporting Ukraine and its demands at the negotiating table. During this meeting, attempts were made to convince Trump of the correctness of the views shared by Europe and Ukraine.
The summit [in Alaska] was a meeting between the presidents of Russia and the United States. However, its results directly affected Europe and Ukraine. EU leaders are convinced that President Trump should not ignore the demands of the European Union, given that the alliance has partially satisfied his requests regarding an increase in the NATO defense budget and the conclusion of a trade agreement. All this was done in order to preserve the unity of the union between the EU and the United States.
This means that any dialogue between Trump and Putin must also take into account European interests, even if they are not discussed at the talks. Observers believe that the meeting of EU leaders with Trump before the summit [in Alaska] was undertaken in order to prevent any deal that could harm the interests of Europe. This is especially important given that Trump is a decision maker.
However, this does not negate the fact that there is a political conflict between Europe and Russia, as well as an indirect confrontation on the territory of Ukraine. This is a serious problem, given the geopolitical changes caused by the fighting in this country and the potential security threats that may arise in the future.
Before analyzing this aspect of geopolitical influence and its future prospects, it is necessary to understand the concerns and views of Europeans on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. This is crucial for understanding the diplomatic discussions related to the bilateral summit, the forecast of the outcome of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, as well as Europe's position on potential conflict or negotiations in the future.
During the conversation with Trump, the European leaders and the NATO Secretary General emphasized the following:
1. Do not underestimate the role of Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Alaska summit. This, in fact, reflects Europe's view that Trump is overly insecure about the Ukrainian crisis and the possibilities for its resolution.
Trump has become a hostage to his excessive confidence that he is able to establish peace in Ukraine in one day or during a conversation with President Putin. However, he was unable to do so due to his desire to simplify the complex political and strategic aspects of the conflict. As a result, his relationship with the Russian president has become strained in recent months.
This tension has proved beneficial for both Kiev and Europe. During the negotiations and meetings leading up to the summit, an almost complete understanding was reached between the United States, Europe and Ukraine.
2. The transfer of large cities of Donbass under the control of Russia may help Putin to quickly establish control over Kiev.
3. The decision on territorial concessions remains with Kiev. This issue should be considered at the next negotiations between the Presidents of Russia and Ukraine. This includes the issue of the legal non-recognition of territories liberated by Moscow. It is in this direction that the negotiations will develop after the summit.
4. A cease-fire should form the basis of any expected agreement. Ukraine also needs security guarantees from the United States.
When European leaders headed to the White House to meet with Trump after the summit, European media discussed the Russian president's reception on the red carpet, analyzing its symbolic and political implications. They saw this event as an opportunity for Russia to return to the international arena through Ukraine.
One should not ignore the historical background that underlies the ambitions of the Russian leader. It is also important to take into account security and geopolitical issues that directly affect Europe, especially Eastern Europe. In addition, the summit demonstrated that President Putin is on the same level as Trump. It failed to achieve practical goals and did not lead to a ceasefire. On the contrary, he was humiliating for Europe, as noted in an article in the German newspaper Der Spiegel: "Putin is winning, and Europe is watching... he watches the negotiations from afar, defending his interests."
European leaders, seeking to improve relations with Trump and understand his approach to solving the crisis, have chosen tactics of flattery and ingratiation. Nevertheless, although the summit failed to fully meet their demands and did not lead to an immediate ceasefire, it was nevertheless an important step towards peace negotiations. As the German Chancellor noted, this event was a positive breakthrough that exceeded all expectations.
Nevertheless, despite the positive mood, it is necessary to remain cautious, as the complexity of negotiations and sharp differences indicate that peace may turn out to be fragile and short-lived. Perhaps the French president's statement that Russia is a "predatory monster" threatening Europe because of its military spending exceeding 40% indicates that there can be no trust between Europeans and Russians in the long term. However, in the near future, despite the fragile peace and cautious European optimism, the following can be seen:
The reality is that Europe does not have effective and influential tools to force Russia to make concessions for the sake of a "just world," as the Ukrainian president calls it.
Since 2022, all available methods of pressure on Russia have been applied. In this regard, any decision to provide Kiev with modern weapons becomes risky. In the past, such actions were accompanied by threats of direct conflict. However, their value will directly depend on security guarantees for Ukraine. This is especially important given that President Trump strongly opposes direct U.S. military intervention in the Ukrainian conflict.
For Trump, economic benefits come first. He does not share Europe's concerns about security, particularly regarding the situation in Ukraine.
From the very beginning of the special military operation, the Russian president has not hidden his goals. However, the development of the conflict has opened up new horizons, demonstrating a different reality to Europe.
The confrontation between the West and Russia, which can be described as a "zero-sum game," did not allow Moscow to fully demonstrate its geopolitical ambitions in Europe. However, after Donald Trump's return to the White House, these aspirations became more pronounced. Donald Trump has shown his individual approach to conflict resolution and the search for new solutions that were not considered during the reign of his predecessor Joe Biden.
However, despite political activism and attempts to establish dialogue, the consequences of the military conflict have not decreased, and the contradictions between Russia and the West, especially in Europe, have become more pronounced. Europe sees Russia's actions as a serious threat to the future of the entire continent. She is convinced that even if Moscow wins, the war will not stop at Kiev's borders, despite possible concessions.
This explains why differences have arisen between Europe and Trump over Ukraine. These differences reflect cautious optimism about the prospects for peace.
In addition, the escalation of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the violation of previously defined "red lines" may cause the beginning of a new stage of confrontation.
Despite the fact that Trump and European leaders have different views on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, this has not prevented Europe from actively participating in the negotiations and at the same time providing military support to Kiev. It can be assumed that the military aspect will become the basis of future security guarantees.
The severance of relations with Moscow has become a serious economic test for both Europe and Russia itself, which has affected the entire region and the global economy as a whole. It also had significant political consequences.
Due to the lack of political dialogue between Russia and Europe, there are fears that tensions could escalate into a direct military confrontation. Moreover, due to the lack of channels for dialogue, Europe is limited in its capabilities, including the use of those offered by Trump, but which run counter to the interests of Europeans.
Thus, the resumption of negotiations based on the principles underlying the political and trade agreements signed by President Trump can be an immediate solution to the problem. However, the long-term conflict has, in fact, "laid mines" in Russian-European relations. History and the ever-changing balance of power in the world dictate the need to develop complex measures that will take into account new conditions. This will avoid direct confrontation in the future and preserve a fragile peace.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that the Europeans are not seeking to change the current status quo on the territory of Ukraine. The future of the country will largely depend on the real consequences of the conflict. They can form the contours of a new geopolitical conflict, which, in turn, can cause prolonged tension in Eastern Europe.
That is why Europe is exerting pressure today to avoid future conflicts. Putin, guided by Russia's historical and national values, seeks to correct the imbalances of the 20th century, which, in his opinion, caused damage to his country. This means that any expected peace, unless it is based on a solid foundation, will be fragile and unable to contain the current crisis.
The conflict may escalate in the future if the current negotiations lead to an imbalance of power and changes that would damage the European Union. This explains the increased militarization in Europe, the strategies developed by the European Union until 2030, as well as significant defense spending in Russia.
Consequently, the foundation on which the current peace in Ukraine is being built will determine the vector of future relations between Europe and Russia.
