WASHINGTON DC – In a move that has sent shockwaves through European capitals, US President Donald Trump is set to meet with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. The summit, pitched by the White House as a critical step toward ending the war in Ukraine, is being viewed with deep suspicion and anxiety across the Atlantic.
For Europe, the stakes couldn’t be higher: they fear being sidelined in a negotiation that could define the continent’s future.
Europe’s greatest fear: a deal decided without them
The fear of being left out of the conversation is paramount. As former Lithuanian Ambassador to Russia, Eitvydas Bajarūnas, explained in a press briefing organized by the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) Thursday morning, the initial reaction in Europe to the summit was one of dread.
European leaders worried that the US and Russia would strike a deal and then “jointly pressure” Ukraine and Europe to accept it.
This model, Bajarūnas argued in response to Kyiv Post’s question, would be a major diplomatic victory for Russia, as it would legitimize Putin without requiring any real concessions on his part.
The concern, he noted, prompted a trilateral virtual summit between Trump, European leaders, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, aimed at ensuring Europe’s messages were conveyed directly to the US president.
Olga Tokariuk, a CEPA fellow and Ukrainian journalist, reinforced this point, describing the summit as a source of “a lot of anxiety in Ukraine.”
The longstanding principle of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” is being challenged, she said, as “it looks like it’s two big powers are just deciding the fate of Ukraine without any Ukrainians at the table.”
Non-negotiables and the sanctions leverage
Europe’s stance on the conflict has been clear and firm: a ceasefire is a must, but it must not come at the cost of territorial concessions or the formal recognition of Russian-occupied lands.
European leaders have stressed the importance of any future negotiations being conducted within a transatlantic framework where Ukraine is an equal partner.
Bajarūnas highlighted the critical role of European sanctions in any potential deal. “The bulk of sanctions are on the European side,” he noted, emphasizing that Europe must maintain its leverage and not be sidelined in any discussion about lifting them.
The former ambassador also warned against a scenario where “Americans are negotiating and then Europeans are paying the bill” for Ukraine’s reconstruction – an outcome that he said would not be accepted.
A test of American commitment
The American position on the summit is more complex. According to Jason Israel, a former National Security Council official, the best-case outcome for the US is to leave Putin with a clear understanding that the US and its allies are committed to the long term. The worst-case scenario, Israel said, is anything that reduces confidence in that commitment.
This concern is amplified by a “plausible scenario” floated by experts: what if Trump makes a bad deal, Ukraine rejects it, and the US “washes its hands” of the conflict, as the US president has suggested he might do?
Israel acknowledged that it would be “very difficult for [Ukraine] to resist that momentum” in the current dynamic without US military aid.
However, he pointed to a silver lining: a recent change in NATO rules now allows aid to Ukraine to be counted toward a country’s defense spending targets, potentially easing the burden on Europe to fill the gap.
The big picture: beyond Ukraine
For Putin, the summit is not just about Ukraine. Bajarūnas believes the Russian leader is using the meeting to project an image of Russia as a co-equal power on the world stage, with shared interests in areas like the Arctic and strategic arms control.
This, Bajarūnas warns, is part of a broader strategy of “strategic ambiguity” and hybrid warfare designed to weaken the West’s resolve and sow division between the US and Europe.
Tokariuk echoed this sentiment, arguing that the war is ultimately not about territory, but about destroying Ukraine as a “sovereign and independent state.”
As the leaders meet, the question for Europe is whether its frantic pre-summit diplomacy will be enough to ensure its interests are protected and that the future of the continent is not decided in a room where its key leaders aren’t present.