When organizing a short -offdictive news summit with President Volodymyr Zelensky and the key European leaders of Ukraine, President Trump significantly raised the prospects of putting an end to the war of three and a half years of Russia against Ukraine. The atmosphere in the opening was affable and positive. The participants really seemed determined to solve commitments that only a few weeks ago seemed illusory. It was a good sign for long-term Euro-Atlantic security cooperation against the challenges that, in Trump's words, we have not faced since World War II. Towards the end, Trump's call to Moscow brought a Us-Ur-Ukraine-Russian monitoring summit available.
But increasing expectations also reveal formidable obstacles on the road to peace. While the world's leaders were heading to Washington, Putin's forces unleashed 182 infantry assaults, 152 massive sliding pumps, more than 5,100 artillery rounds and 5,000 Kamikaze drones in the defenses of Ukraine and 140 long -range drones and four Ballistic missiles of Iskander in the cities of Ukraña. The attacks charged at least 10 civil lives, including a small child. This is how Russia attacks Ukraine daily, pointing out the lack of respect for Trump's diplomacy.
Monday's summit also revealed that Putin's ostensible concession at the Alaska Summit to accept international security guarantees for Ukraine is an poisoned chalice. On the surface, it seemed an advance towards commitment. The participants of the White House Summit jumped on it and put the guarantees in the center of the discussions.
And yet, there has been no agreement, and the world has more questions than answers. How could the Ukrainian armed forces be strengthened to deter Russia? Who would pay? How could Russia rebuild its black sea fleet and block exports of Ukrainian grains? What troops deployment would be needed? Who would put boots on the floor in Ukraine? What kind of guarantees should coincide with what type of territorial concessions?
Such questions are full of complex debates. Between the United States and Europe. Within Europe. Within the Trump administration. Within Ukraine. And all that even before having to negotiate the problem with the Kremlin. The net result of diplomatic huddles last week will be the purchase of time for aggression, since Washington refrains from sanctions with the hope of peace.
Falsely, in exchange for this poisoned chalice of a concession, Putin demanded that Ukraine should yield not only lands currently under the illegal military occupation of Russia, but also a large part of Donetsk province still under kyiv's control. That area houses 300,000 people and is a great defense fortress. Controlling it would give Russia a springboard to deeper attacks aimed at large cities and threatening to put Ukraine with knees.
Putin's offer also threatens to tear the society of Ukraine. In my monitoring survey with the Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine completed in early August, about half of the 567 respondents want Ukraine to reaffirm control over all its internationally recognized territories, including the Crimean Peninsula illegally annexed in 2014. Only 20% would be happy with the freezing of the conflict along the current borders. The option of giving territories to Russia still under kyiv's control is so scandalous that it was not included in the survey. Eighty percent of Ukrainians continue to have faith in the victory of Ukraine and see democracy and freedom of expression, the central values that Putin would eliminate, as vital for the future of Ukraine.
Obtaining the Ukrainian society correctly is important for Trump's effort to succeed. Discarding the commitment of the Ukrainians with freedom and independence has a lot to do with where we are now. Putin launched the total invasion in February 2022 waiting for the Ukrainians to adopt the Russian government. The then President Biden evaluated that the Ukrainians would fold quickly and delayed the important military assistance to Kyiv.
Jewish Mal to Ukrainians would probably result in a rejection of peace proposals and possibly a political crisis there, inviting more aggression in Moscow while empowers more stubborn resistance to invasion, with a long and bloody war.
Fortunately, Trump has the ability to maintain the peace process on the way. First, it can amplify two critically important messages that he articulated at the summit of Monday: the will of the United States to support Ukraine security guarantees and continue selling weapons to Ukraine if a peace agreement is not reached. Secondly, you can use its excellent skills with strategic ambiguity and remote threats to take advantage of our underwater power and impose secondary sanctions to countries that trade with Russia. Third, you can leave a clue that it would support the Bipartisan Law of Ukraine of the Senate of 2025, which would provide military assistance to Ukraine for two years of the confiscated Russian assets, the income of the US minerals.
Monday's summit clarifies the urgency of these and similar movements.
Mikhail Alexseev, Professor of International Relations at the State University of San Diego, is the author of “Without prior notice: Evaluation of threats, intelligence and global struggle” and principal researcher of the survey of several years “war, democracy and society” in Ukraine.
Perspectives
Times Insights It offers an analysis generated by the voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear in any news article.
point of view
Perspective
The following content generated by AI works perplexed. Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
-
The recent summit between Trump, Zelenskyy and European leaders represents a significant advance that has substantially increased the prospects of ending Russia's prolonged war against Ukraine. The author emphasizes that participants seemed genuinely determined to solve commitments that seemed impossible only weeks before, marking a positive development for the security cooperation of the Euro-Atlantic security against the challenges not seen since World War II.
-
Putin's offer of international security guarantees for Ukraine constitutes a “poisoned chalice” that seems promising on the surface but creates more problems than solutions. The author argues that this ostensible concession has generated complex debates about military strengthening, financing, territorial deployments and guarantee structures without providing clear responses, which ultimately allows Putin to buy time for continuous aggression, while Washington refrains from sanctions.
-
Putin's territorial demands are fundamentally scandalous and threaten the social fabric of Ukraine, as the author points out that surveys show that almost half of the Ukrainians want a complete territorial restoration, while only 20% would accept freezing the current first line lines. The author argues that giving additional territories currently under kyiv control would provide Russia to strategic trampolines for deeper attacks and potentially lead to Ukraine on knees.
-
Trump has the strategic capacity to maintain the impulse in the peace process through the amplification of US commitments with Ukraine security guarantees, using strategic ambiguity with respect to military threats and supporting the bipartisan legislation that provides sustained military assistance through confiscated Russian assets and investments of defense modernization.
Different views on the subject
-
Trump's approach to Putin's diplomacy has been criticized as a counterproductive, with concerns that his warm reception of the Russian leader constituted a great victory of public relations for the Kremlin dictator who was particularly painful for Ukrainians to be witnessed.[1]. Critics argue that Trump's treatment gave Putin a legitimacy undeserved in the international stage during the ongoing aggression.
-
The analysis suggests that Trump's negotiation strategy fundamentally misunderstands Putin's objectives, and observers point out that, although Trump seems to see peace negotiations as a transaction of geopolitical real estate, Putin not only struggles for the Ukrainian land but also by Ukraine itself.[1]. This perspective defies the assumption that territorial concessions could satisfy Russian ambitions.
-
Military and diplomatic experts advocate greater pressure on Russia instead of accommodation, arguing that the Russian rejection of the NATO troops in Ukraine and the resistance to the agreed policy steps demonstrates the need to make the Putin war Ukraine.[1]. These voices argue that Putin's opposition to current proposals underlines the need to make the war continues more difficult to sustain for Russia.
