Speculation is rife about the upcoming Donald Trump-Vladimir Putin meeting in Alaska, the leaders’ first meeting during the second Trump administration.
Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine is deeply fraught because he thinks the Trump-Zelensky deal will involve (give away?) Ukrainian territory. Zelensky says no way.
Meanwhile, the Europeans, those countries that cannot defend themselves on their own and will never be able to do so because of their cumulative incompetence, are demanding a seat at the table where they intend to scuttle any deal.
The Europeans were not invited, but Trump sent Vice President J.D. Vance to mollycoddle them. He will do as instructed by his boss. He apparently says that a Trump-Putin deal should be based on current battle lines.
Other than that, we only have wild speculation on what any Trump-Putin deal will look like. We are operating in the dark. Trump and Putin want to talk about Ukraine and possible strategic issues between Russia and the United States.
Putin’s and Russia’s goals are clear and unambiguous. There is little doubt Trump knows exactly what they are. To remind him, Russian politicians, with Putin in the lead, repeat them often.
What do we know? Putin and Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, spent three hours, more or less, talking over the issues. As was evident from the brief video released by the Kremlin, Putin warmly welcomed Witkoff, all smiles.
This tells us there was a lot of preliminary work done through various diplomatic channels. None of these channels included Ukraine or any European leader.
Still, Putin and Witkoff needed three hours to achieve some precision in what had previously been discussed, and no doubt they were laser-focused on the issues.
The outcome was enough for Trump to praise the Witkoff-Putin meeting, and a meeting between the two heads of state was agreed. (Anyone who claims to know what was said in detail is smoking the New York Times.)
Beyond that, we know that Trump wants a deal that ends the fighting, so whatever was worked out includes an end to the fighting. Some could call it a Ukrainian capitulation (which is precisely what Zelensky thinks he is fighting against); in Trump’s language, though, it would be a ceasefire
But there would be no further reason for the two leaders to meet unless there were many other parts to the deal that they are trying to conclude. It is the “other parts” that are intriguing and unknown, even though everyone thinks they know what they don’t know. (Parts are not parts in this context.)
Everyone knows, and Zelensky vociferously confirms, that Zelensky cannot agree to any territorial concessions. It is hard to figure out any workaround that would bring Zelensky on board, and it may well be that no other prospective Ukrainian leaders could agree either (unless they were stooges of the Russians, and then they would have a short life span).
From Zelensky’s point of view, which is probably no longer supported by the Ukrainian public that is increasingly tired of the war and the casualties, giving up territory would signal the collapse of Ukraine’s army, making Ukraine subject to full Russian control.
The Russians say they do not want to control Ukraine, that Putin wants a neutral and peaceful Ukrainian neighbor with only a small army and with no NATO membership. Oddly enough, a peaceful Ukraine would strategically suit Europe, which needs at least a decade to get its armed forces and defense industries in order.
That is, of course, if you buy all the claims being made by European countries (UK, France and Germany especially) and by the EU that they are going to build a strong fortress Europe and support Ukraine all-in, as if they have the resources and will to make any of this happen.
If you think it may be a scam, you are likely on the right track: Europe’s objective is to get the US to provide the real security backbone for the continent. Meanwhile, the money flowing into European defense companies is more designed to provide employment (jobs) rather than to build weapons.
The latest indicator is that the Italian government has asked its flagship defense company, Leonardo, to figure out how to spend a windfall of euros, so they will find some gold-plated, irrelevant solutions to meet a political and economic need.
It is also clear, though, that the “big” European governments, and the EU itself, are in a lot of political trouble. The ridiculous low polling of Britain’s Labor government shows, as Henny Penny said, the sky is falling.
The current gaggle of European leaders – Germany, France, UK, Poland (maybe not Italy) – is not likely to last, at most, a few years, after which conservative, nationalist governments will replace them. Thinking that these in-power leaders can really arrange the future is not believable.
For Trump, the problem is a different one. In a perfect world, he would like to settle the Ukraine war and stabilize the US’s role in Europe, which is nearly impossible because of the European leadership clique.
But beyond that, Trump wants to counter China, and he needs to find a way to pull Russia away from its strategic alignment with the Beijing behemoth. That is one of the big reasons he wants to court Putin. Trump has leverage: he can help Russia restart its economy by lifting sanctions and making investments.
He can share “big tech”, including American AI. There is a risk in doing so, but either Russia gets the technology from China or from the United States. Trump’s real secret weapon is to restore Russia’s legitimacy as not just a leader of failed states such as North Korea and Iran.
But Trump may not be able to fashion a package that will have US domestic support, let alone anything forthcoming in a positive direction from Europe. We really don’t know if he is even serious or if he is setting Putin up.
The captive Western press, unfortunately, has it all backwards: they think Putin has Trump in the palm of his hand. This is nonsense and terribly misleading. Trump has more cards than Putin, though both like poker.
We have to wait and see how all this plays out – whether any success comes from the upcoming meeting, or the failure in Ukraine is left to the two fighting forces to settle somehow. But speculation for now is folly.
Stephen Bryen is a special correspondent to Asia Times and former US deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. This article, which originally appeared in his Substack newsletter Weapons and Strategy, is republished with permission.
