EU statement after the Putin-Trump summit: window-dressing or sabotage?

The Anchorage (Alaska) summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin – the first US-Russian face-to-face meeting since the invasion of Ukraine – did not produce an immediate ceasefire, but outlined the terms of a possible compromise to end the conflict ( reuters.com ) . A few hours after the meeting, the main European leaders (France, Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, Finland, Poland, along with the EU leaders) released a joint statement supporting American diplomatic efforts. Formally, the document praised Trump's efforts to "stop the killing" and achieve a just peace . In practice, however, it set very strict conditions: demands that Moscow finds unacceptable and suggest an attempt to strengthen Ukraine's position and maintain high pressure on Putin. The impression, according to some observers, is that Brussels welcomes diplomacy but at the same time seeks to sabotage any agreement that would concede something to the Kremlin , for fear of losing control of the negotiating process now led directly by Washington and Moscow.

The EU Joint Declaration: Guarantees yes, compromises no

In the joint statement published the day after the summit, European leaders reiterated their full support for Ukraine and set stringent conditions. "We are convinced that Ukraine must have ironclad security guarantees to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity," the leaders stated, welcoming Trump's willingness to provide such guarantees ( tg24.sky.it) . At the same time, they ruled out any limitations on Kiev's military capabilities or its future alliances : "No limitations should be imposed on Ukraine's armed forces or its cooperation with third countries. Russia cannot have veto power over Ukraine's path towards the EU and NATO." This step, in essence, denies Moscow any sphere of influence over Ukraine's geopolitical future. Furthermore, "Ukraine will be responsible for making decisions on its own territory. International borders must not be changed by force," the statement states, reiterating that no agreement can lead to territorial recognition imposed on Kiev.

Consistent with this firm stance, Brussels confirms its unwavering military and financial support . The Western coalition declares itself determined to "keep Ukraine strong" until "a just and lasting peace" is achieved and emphasizes that "as long as the killings in Ukraine continue, [we] are ready to […] exert pressure on Russia," including further economic sanctions. In other words, no real de-escalation is granted to Moscow until it accepts Kiev's conditions . Punitive measures against Russia will remain in place until peace is achieved on terms deemed acceptable by Kyiv and its allies—a "just peace" according to the Western definition. This approach also reflects the widespread fear in European capitals: that an agreement reached bilaterally between Washington and Moscow could sacrifice some Ukrainian or European interests. The EU elites want to avoid being excluded from the negotiations and, through this declaration, claim an active role and the final say on the content of the final agreement ( adnkronos.com ) . It is no coincidence that the text states that "the path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Kiev" and that European partners are ready to participate in a future trilateral summit with the US and Ukraine.

Reactions from France, the United Kingdom, Italy and Germany

Leaders of major European countries amplified the joint statement's message in public statements, maintaining a united front in support of Kiev. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer praised Trump's leadership in " bringing the end of the war closer than ever ," but at the same time warned that "the path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Zelensky" and promised to "continue to tighten the grip on [Putin's] war machine with even more sanctions" until Moscow stops its "barbaric aggression" ( it.euronews.com) . French President Emmanuel Macron shared the same opinion, calling on Twitter to "draw all the lessons of the last 30 years, particularly from Russia's proven propensity to fail to respect its commitments," assuring that France will continue to work side by side with Trump and Zelensky to protect common interests in a spirit of unity and responsibility. “France continues to stand resolutely alongside Ukraine,” Macron added, reiterating Paris’ solidarity with Kiev.

A unanimous chorus also came from Rome and Berlin . Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni spoke of a "glimmer of hope that is finally opening up to discuss peace in Ukraine," claiming that Italy "is doing its part together with its Western allies." Meloni said she was encouraged that a peace agreement was "finally possible" after the military stalemate of recent months, while admitting that negotiations remain complex . Above all, the prime minister was keen to clarify that "only Ukraine will be able to negotiate on the conditions and its own territories," expressing the Italian position: no pressure on Kyiv to cede sovereign territory in exchange for peace. In Germany, Chancellor Friedrich Merz (whose government hosted the European preparatory meetings) stressed that "Ukraine can count on our unwavering solidarity" in pursuing a peace that protects the "vital security interests of Ukraine and Europe" ( reuters.com) . This sentence, identical to the one contained in the EU declaration, underlines the desire to present a united and inflexible European front : territorial concessions or "pauses" in the conflict are considered unacceptable without concrete guarantees and without Kiev's explicit consent.

The message from EU leaders was no less harsh. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen confirmed that "the EU is working closely with President Zelensky and the United States to achieve a just and lasting peace," insisting that "robust security guarantees that protect vital Ukrainian and European interests are essential." The new EU High Representative, Kaja Kallas (a Baltic figure known for her tough stance towards Moscow), even highlighted her distrust of Russian intentions: according to Kallas, the "harsh reality" is that the Kremlin has no intention of ending the war anytime soon and "continues to drag out negotiations in the hope of getting away with it." Putin, she stated, "left Anchorage without committing to ending the massacres," and therefore "the US has the power to force Russia to negotiate seriously," making it clear that only further Western pressure can break Moscow . Even from the European Parliament, through the voice of President Roberta Metsola , came the warning that "a lasting peace must be based on solid and credible security guarantees" , reiterating the alignment of the EU institutions with the "hard line" approach that emerged from the summit.

Zelensky's position: fears and conditionality

Faced with Trump's diplomatic initiative, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reacted by wavering between initial skepticism and cautious support, subject to specific conditions. On the eve of the Anchorage meeting—from which Zelensky was excluded —the Kiev leader had not hidden his doubts. Indeed, he described the mere fact that Putin had secured a direct bilateral meeting with the US president as a "personal victory" for the Kremlin tsar. "He will meet on US soil, and I consider this a personal victory for him. [...] He is coming out of isolation because he will meet on US soil," Zelensky declared, worried that the face-to-face meeting in Alaska could rehabilitate Putin on the international stage after more than three years of diplomatic marginalization. The Ukrainian president, in short, feared that Washington might make concessions behind the scenes, bypassing Kiev's interests. In particular, Zelensky has set insurmountable red lines : he categorically ruled out "the withdrawal [of troops] from the Donbass region" as part of a possible peace agreement ( adnkronos.com) , reacting to the hypothesis – suggested by American statements – that both sides would have to make some territorial concessions to stop the war. "We will not withdraw from Donbass... We would clearly open a corridor for the Russians to prepare a new offensive," Zelensky warned, reiterating that no unilateral territorial compromise will be accepted .

At the same time, the Ukrainian president insisted on the principle that "nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine." "It's impossible to talk about Ukraine without Ukraine. Without us, they can't make any decisions," he declared, reminding Trump of his duty not to decide Ukraine's fate and borders over Kiev's head. Zelensky expressed confidence that he could personally meet with Putin and Trump "sooner or later," but stressed that any US-Russian dialogue can only concern bilateral issues between Washington and Moscow, and "they can't decide anything about Ukraine without us." These words reflect Kiev's deep concern : despite depending on Western support, Zelensky does not intend to be pressured to accept agreements perceived as unfavorable or humiliating for his country.

After the Anchorage summit, however, Zelensky took a more constructive tone – also a sign of his desire not to split the front with Washington. Briefed by Trump on the outcome of the talks with Putin, the Ukrainian leader expressed appreciation for the American initiative and supported the idea of possible trilateral negotiations. "We support President Trump's proposal for a trilateral meeting between Ukraine, the United States, and Russia," Zelensky announced in a message posted on social media, adding that "a trilateral format is suitable" for discussing key issues directly "at the leader level." Zelensky confirmed a meeting with Trump in Washington for Monday, August 18, to "discuss all the details to end the killings and the war." While reiterating Ukraine's "maximum commitment to achieving peace," he also stressed that European allies must be involved at every stage : "It is important that Europeans are involved at every stage to ensure solid security guarantees together with America." The message is clear: Kiev intends to work with Washington, but also wants Europeans around the table, both to keep the Western front united and to bind the United States to concrete, multilateral security offers. Zelensky then reported "positive signals from the American side" regarding its willingness to participate in future security agreements for Ukraine (tg24.sky.it) – an allusion to the idea of international guarantees modeled on NATO's Article 5 , i.e., a mutual defense pact that would protect Kiev from future Russian attacks ( reuters.com ) . Essentially, Zelensky appears open to Trump's plan only on the condition that it is not a mere "pause" for Moscow to reorganize, but produces binding commitments for Ukraine's security.

The outlines of the Putin-Trump compromise

The Alaska summit shed light on the basis of a possible compromise , which Trump himself defined as a path "directly toward a peace agreement, and not just a ceasefire." This approach—welcomed by Moscow—implies that, rather than signing a temporary truce (often doomed to fail), work should be done immediately on a comprehensive, long-term agreement. According to rumors, Trump and Putin have found a principle of agreement on two key points : security guarantees for Kiev and neutral status , on the one hand, and postponing the thorniest territorial issues to later negotiations. In a television interview immediately after the summit, Trump mentioned having discussed "territorial concessions and security guarantees for Ukraine" with Putin, maintaining that "largely an agreement" had been reached on these aspects. "We're pretty close to an agreement," he declared, while admitting that "Ukraine has to agree" and that "maybe they'll say no." The American president—re-elected with the promise of "ending the war in 24 hours"—emphasized the need for Kiev to "have to make a deal" because "Russia is a very great power and [the Ukrainians] are not." These words suggest pressure on Ukraine to consider difficult compromises.

On the security front, the idea that has emerged echoes a concept already mooted in Europe: offering Ukraine solid international guarantees as an alternative to formal NATO membership. Giorgia Meloni, the Italian Prime Minister, revealed that "President Trump has taken up the Italian proposal" for a mutual defense mechanism similar to NATO's Article 5. In practice, Kiev would obtain military protection from a broad international coalition , but without immediate entry into the Atlantic Alliance, which Moscow would consider unacceptable. Putin himself—who in the past rejected any Western involvement in Ukrainian security—said in Anchorage that "Ukraine's security must be ensured." This signal, albeit generic, indicates that the Kremlin could tolerate guarantees for Kiev as long as they occur outside the NATO framework .

On the other crucial issue, that of the disputed territories , the summit did not produce any detailed public statements. Trump had initially hoped for at least a ceasefire, but he emerged from the meeting oriented toward a more comprehensive solution, explicitly speaking of possible "land swaps" between the parties. According to press sources, Trump privately suggested that Ukraine and Russia could make mutual concessions on the control of certain areas, rather than insisting on all the currently occupied territory . Putin, for his part, showed no openness to immediate withdrawals , maintaining traditional positions (recognition of Russian annexations or at least freezing the status quo on the ground). The Russian leader spoke of "progress" and expressed confidence that "the agreement reached [with Trump] will allow us to get closer to the goal and pave the way for peace in Ukraine," but he did not mention any direct meeting with Zelensky or details on possible territorial compromises. In fact, Moscow appears to be gaining time and legitimacy by sitting down with the United States as equals without conceding anything in advance. Not surprisingly, Putin issued an explicit warning: "We expect Kiev and European capitals not to attempt to disrupt the emerging progress through provocations or behind-the-scenes intrigues." This warning betrays Russia's fear of diplomatic sabotage by Ukraine or the EU—as if the Kremlin believed that elements hostile to the negotiations could trigger incidents or create impossible conditions that could derail the newly initiated dialogue.

In short, the framework outlined in Anchorage includes robust security guarantees for Kiev (but in a neutral, “NATO-free” framework ), and postponing the border issue to later negotiations, possibly in a Trump-Zelensky- Putin trilateral meeting. Trump has announced that he will meet Zelensky at the White House and, “if all goes well,” “there will be a trilateral meeting with Putin” in the near future. However, huge unknowns remain : will Kiev ever agree to negotiate the renunciation of part of its territory? And will Putin really be willing to recognize and guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty, even if neutral, over the rest of the country? At the moment, Zelensky continues to categorically rule out ceding Donbass or Crimea, and Putin shows no signs of backing down. The result is that the central issues are being de facto postponed. The Anchorage summit opened a direct channel of communication and provided the semblance of a “roadmap,” but the most difficult issues are far from resolved.

Sabotage accusations and diplomatic backstories

The American mediation attempt has sparked mixed reactions behind the scenes . While Europeans publicly aligned themselves with Trump's plan, accusations of double-dealing have rained down on the EU from the Russian side . Even before the summit, Moscow's Foreign Ministry denounced the European stance as hypocritical: EU leaders "pay lip service to Washington and Moscow's diplomatic efforts to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, but in reality the European Union is sabotaging them," said Alexey Fadeyev, deputy spokesman for Minister Lavrov. According to this Russian perspective, some European governments fear an end to the conflict because it would force them to account for the enormous military investments made and the economic stagnation suffered in the name of the war. In short, Moscow insinuates that Western elites have a political interest in prolonging the war , preferring a controlled escalation to the risk of a compromise perceived as a defeat. Russian officials also warned Europeans against taking any hostile action to the ongoing negotiations, saying they would “monitor the actions of European countries in relation to the summit” to ensure that no one stood in the way of “reaching constructive agreements” between Trump and Putin.

At the same time, the Kremlin has pointed the finger at Kiev. The Russian Defense Ministry has accused Ukraine of planning a military "provocation" to be carried out shortly before the start of the Anchorage summit, "with the aim of sabotaging the talks" between Putin and Trump. No details or evidence of these plans have been provided, but they raise fears—real or spurious—that Ukrainian factions opposed to concessions might attempt to derail the diplomatic process, perhaps with a dramatic operation on the ground. For his part, Zelensky has warned that he expects an intensification of Russian bombing in the days following the summit, precisely "to create more favorable political circumstances for talks with global players." In other words, each side suspects the other of seeking to negotiate by force : Moscow accuses Kiev of wanting to sabotage peace with military provocations; Kiev accuses Moscow of wanting to strike harder to enter negotiations from a position of strength. The climate, therefore, remains extremely tense despite diplomatic openings.

There is also no shortage of behind-the-scenes information regarding possible Western concessions under consideration. While the EU is publicly maintaining its position on sanctions, some rumors suggest that the allies are exploring gradual mechanisms to incentivize Moscow to halt its weapons. EU sources cited by the press report that the allies are considering a gradual easing of sanctions against Russia in the event of a full ceasefire . Under this plan, the aim would first be to secure a complete 15-day truce (during which all sanctions would remain in place); subsequently, if hostilities were truly suspended, a more structured suspension of punitive measures would be agreed upon. Sanctions would then be immediately reintroduced if Russia violated the terms of the ceasefire ( adnkronos.com) . These "carrot and stick" negotiations—not officially confirmed—indicate that behind the inflexible rhetoric, Europe is also preparing flexible options to facilitate a possible agreement. Moreover, similar signals had emerged before the summit: in the aftermath of the preparatory video conference on August 13, rumors circulated that "the allies are considering easing sanctions" as part of a possible peace package. This suggests subtle but real divisions among the various Western actors : publicly unanimous in maintaining high pressure on Putin, but at the same time aware that a realistic compromise might require economic and political concessions.

Future scenarios: compromise or impasse?

As it stands, Trump's diplomatic initiative has opened a new and highly uncertain game. Several possible scenarios are emerging for the coming months , depending on how Kiev and its allies react:

• Acceptance of compromise : Trump's most desired scenario, but considered unlikely in the short term. Ukraine, with Europe's support, could decide to seriously negotiate over the bases discovered in Anchorage—thus agreeing to guaranteed security without immediately joining NATO and postponing the territorial dispute. In this case, however, Zelensky would have to sell domestic public opinion some territorial concessions or neutral status, a risky step that currently appears politically impractical.

• Continuing the hard line : this is the status quo scenario, in which Kiev maintains maximalist positions (demanding a complete Russian withdrawal before any agreement) and Europe supports it in this regard. However, this would lead to a negotiating impasse and the continuation of the war indefinitely. An implicit risk of this path is the erosion of American support : if Washington (under Trump) perceived Kiev as too intransigent and responsible for the stalemate, it could gradually reduce direct support, leaving Zelensky more isolated. Essentially, refusing any compromise risks alienating the very mediator—the United States—on which Ukraine still depends for vital military and financial aid.

• Buying time with limited concessions : A middle ground option would be for Zelensky to adopt a delaying strategy, consisting of partial concessions and step-by-step negotiations , to avoid breaking with Trump without giving in on fundamental issues. For example, Kiev could accept a temporary ceasefire or technical talks on certain points, while seeking to postpone final decisions (especially territorial ones) pending more favorable military developments or internal political developments. In this scenario, the Ukrainian leadership would try to stall , perhaps hoping that internal pressures (such as the 2026 US elections or the course of the conflict itself) would restore leeway. This "delay card" would have the advantage of maintaining Western support intact in the short term, but risks further straining the country if the war were to drag on for a long time without a clear path to peace.

In any case, Europe and Ukraine's reaction to the Anchorage initiative has so far been to raise the stakes , not lower them. The statements from Brussels and Western capitals—in many ways rigid —seem aimed at averting a low-ball agreement between Washington and Moscow, but at the same time could make it more difficult to find common ground with the Kremlin. Putin, for his part, appears emboldened by having obtained "equal treatment" with the US (a legitimacy that Zelensky has called a "personal victory" for the Russian leader – adnkronos.com ) and has not conceded anything concrete. It's legitimate to wonder whether the diplomacy underway risks turning into a disguised stalemate , where each side continues to pursue its own war aims under the guise of dialogue.

Conclusion

The outcome of the Anchorage summit ushered in a new but fragile phase in the Ukrainian crisis. On the one hand, Trump's United States has regained diplomatic control after months of frozen conflict, offering a glimmer of hope for direct negotiations with Moscow. On the other, Europe and Kiev have reacted by hardening their public positions , fearing that American peace might sacrifice justice—that is, that a top-down agreement might force Ukraine to accept territorial losses or unwanted compromises. Brussels formally supports peace efforts, but insists on conditions that match Ukraine's maximum demands, outlining a peace on Kiev's terms . This means that the room for negotiation with Moscow remains extremely narrow: Western conditions appear unacceptable to the Kremlin , which in fact openly speaks of European sabotage . As the war continues to claim victims every day, with new Russian bombings and Ukrainian counterattacks on the ground, the risk is that the diplomatic process just begun will get bogged down in a game of crossed vetoes and mutual distrust.

Ultimately, the current situation resembles a multi-table chess game : Washington and Moscow are moving pawns in Alaska, Kiev and Brussels are relaunching their efforts with defensive moves in Europe, and each fears the other's "betrayal." It will be crucial to see whether the logic of compromise will prevail in the coming weeks—with some mutual sacrifices in the name of a lasting peace—or whether the stalemate will continue, shrouded in superficial diplomatic declarations but in reality fueled by new weapons and sanctions . As a former German ambassador's cutting comment suggests, the first round in Anchorage ended with "no real progress—a clear 1-0 for Putin... For the Ukrainians: nothing. For Europe: a profound disappointment." It will now be up to the leaders involved to demonstrate whether this pessimistic assessment can be belied by concrete steps toward ending hostilities, or whether the conflict will remain trapped in a spiral in which every peace offer is perceived as insidious sabotage disguised as diplomacy .

Sources:

• Joint statement by European leaders after the Trump-Putin summit ( tg24.sky.it )

• Official reactions from the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany and the EU ( it.euronews.com )

• Zelensky's statements before and after the summit ( adnkronos.com )

• News and background on the Anchorage summit (Reuters, Sky TG24, Adnkronos) ( reuters.com )

• Analytical and independent commentary on the ongoing negotiations ( reuters.com )