Drop scene at Alaska

Alaska has certainly been a pinnacle of political drama. American President Donald Trump announced a meet-up with President Vladimir Putin of Russia, one week before, on Truth Social. Alaska was special because it is cold and far-off and had been a possession of the Russian Empire from 1732 to 1867, and also because the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, and the ICC, which has issued Putin's arrest warrants.

The hearts of the world audience throbbed with the idea of world's two most powerful men meeting in a far-off, snow-clad fairyland, where Zeus Trump was surely going to end the battle of Titanomachy in Tartarus Ukraine with the help of Prometheus Zelensky, subduing Titan Putin with his thunderbolt sanctions to a complete defeat or at least a ceasefire drop-scene.

But reality is different from wishfulness. And the reality is that Putin is wining at the warfront. Donetsk, Luhansk and Zaporizhian have been annexed as of 2022; and Crimea as of 2014. Kherson is over two-thirds occupied, and Russian forces are gaining more areas mile-by-mile in their continuous pursuit. Moreover, Putin's narrative of a cultural and historic unification in the people of Ukraine and Russia resounds stronger with the people of the conflict zone than Zelensky's claim that entering NATO and EU is the sovereign right and need of Ukraine.

Theoretically, wars end only when both sides perceive that peace is more beneficial for them than continuation of war. And war aims of both sides keep changing based on battlefield outcomes. The domestic political factors also matter; and on the Ukrainian side they are reflected by a war-torn battle zone, with millions of refugees and internally displaced, war deaths in hundreds of thousands, destruction of infrastructure and livelihoods and constant fear of attacks — all things pointing to the people's likely frustration and anger. The Russians on the other side have not lost any area, and their war gains have bolstered their national image and pride as a daunting military power that can stand against NATO and the US.

So, while Putin's stature has risen from a strongman to a successful strategist, Zelensky's has dwarfed to that of an opportunist, seeking guarantees from the US and EU, because after billions of dollars of aid and military equipment already given, he has proven to be strategically unviable. Comparing today's Ukraine War with the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan, it is clear that they were won by indigenous freedom-fighting forces committed to the cause of their nation and land; whereas here the people's commitment seems missing, simply because they feel that they have been drawn into an unnecessary war (resulting in minimal trust in Zelensky as their leader) and that Russia is not an enemy.

So, as the war outcomes continually favour Russia, it does not perceive any benefit in ending the war without having the deal it wants. And as the Alaska Summit approached, Trump must have known that Putin was not in the mood to surrender. Rather, he was likely to ask for a deal that ensures Ukraine's disconnection from NATO/EU membership; Russia's keeping of territories it has annexed; and exclusion of any Western guarantees that promise the presence of any Western militaries in Ukraine. Or, going a step further, Putin could also ask for Zelensky's removal and the reinstatement of a pro-Russia regime as was before 2014.

Trump also knew that he was to defend a weak Zelensky, one who has already hinted that a settlement involving territorial concessions might be conceivable if backed by Western guarantees. Clearly, Zelensky is not depending upon the resolve of his people or of his fighters, but upon maneuvering the EU and US so as to extract maximum possible benefits and guarantees – one of which would be ensuring his staying in power.

But to Zelensky's detriment, neither the EU nor the US is in a position to do him much good. Three days after Alaska, Zelensky was in the White House along with Ursula von der Leyen, Emmanuel Macron, Friedrich Merz, Keir Starmer. The room was decorated with a large map of Ukraine, with all Russian occupied territories painted in red — a clear message of what Zelensky will have to give away. All the guests were repeating one rhetoric — that a ceasefire is required before talks with Putin, and that security guarantees are a must for Ukraine. To that, Trump simply uttered that there would be no ceasefire and that the EU would have to fulfil the security guarantees.

But the EU knows well that it cannot go on with the war or any guarantees without US backing. How can they guarantee anything in a war they have utterly lost even with US aid and leadership. Neither the EU nor any of its members has an appetite to fight a war on their own. The truth was that the US had dragged the EU into this war in the first place, as it was their ambition to extend NATO right up to Russian borders, and for that Victoria Nuland was tasked to select a US puppet like Zelensky, who would ask for NATO/EU membership the day he comes to power. So, losing the Ukraine battlefront is a combined defeat for the US, the EU — and rather of the whole West. It is a stamp on the decline of Western hegemony and relevance in global matters.

The fact that Europe's strongest people — Ursula von der Leyen, Macron, Merz and Starmer — rushed to the White House and returned empty handed tells the whole story.

For now, Putin has said that he is willing to take Luhansk and Donetsk and freeze fighting in the rest of the territories for a peace deal, but it is probable that once that is achieved, he will ask for more and more — until Zelensky is no more on the scene! Because the eventual goal for Russia will be to have a complete pro-Russian regime in Ukraine, one with no will to tilt towards the West.

The bigger global shift to be feared here is a wider shift in Europe's security architecture, which was previously totally aligned and subservient to the US against a perceived enemy — Russia. Now that the US has backfooted from its commitment to Europe, the latter may reassess Russia as a security provider rather than an enemy — for security perhaps against the US!