Alaskan Borscht

Despite successes in solving other conflicts, a pair of US-led peace summits leave the war in Ukraine no closer to an end.

February 28, 2025, is a date, to borrow the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt, one of America’s most perpetually overrated presidents, which shall live in infamy. The first in-person encounter between Presidents Trump and Zelensky during Trump’s second term, February 28 was supposed to herald a breakthrough for both sides. For the United States, the prize was Ukraine’s untapped reserve of rare earth minerals and a path towards ending our strategic vulnerability on the People’s Republic of China. Kyiv, on the other hand, had a far simpler goal: and end to the devastating war that has taken a grim toll on every corner of Ukrainian life. Unfortunately, as we all know, that meeting fell calamitously off the rails, with Zelensky expelled from the White House and the entire Transatlantic relationship thrown to the precipice.

Now, six months later, the world finds itself back in a familiar place. Thanks to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s refusal to engage in serious peace talks and his forces’ brutal attacks on Ukrainian cities, here we are, yet again, witnessing more “peace summits,” with Trump meeting sworn enemies Putin and Zelensky in Anchorage and Washington DC, respectively. These high-level encounters, the latter accompanied by European diplomatic heavyweights, including the President of Finland and fellow Furman University alumnus Alexander Stubb are dedicated to the still-elusive goal of ending the war, Europe’s largest since 1945, and more implausibly, outlining a sustainable peace settlement. The evanescent hopes of a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine have led the legacy media, and the DC establishment at large, to adopt a thumbs-down approach toward Donald Trump’s Ukraine policy. The response to last week’s Alaska summit between the two domineering presidents of the two nuclear superpowers from this crowd was harsh, to say the least.

According to Peter Baker of the New York Times, a paper with a notorious history of inaccurate reporting about Ukraine, President Trump has “bowed to Putin” on Ukraine, giving the Russian strongman “a free pass to continue his war against his neighbor indefinitely without further penalty.” The Washington Post, the once powerful broadsheet currently in steep decline, wrote, “Russia sees victory as Trump adopts Putin’s approach to ending Ukraine war,” with particular criticism reserved for Trump’s openness towards Ukrainian military withdrawal from the devastated Donbas region and agreement with Putin that the war needs a comprehensive and final peace settlement in one go, rather than a temporary ceasefire as a stepping stone to a final deal. Finally, ultimate Ukraine hawk Peter Dickinson of the Atlantic Council think tank, a man whose work has claimed that Russia is both a paper tiger and on the verge of establishing a massive Russian empire, called the Alaska summit a “symbolic triumph for the Kremlin dictator that allowed him to end his international isolation in spectacular fashion.”

The long-scrutinized Putin-Trump relationship aside, I would like to briefly pivot to some of the Trump Administration’s more successful peace efforts. The list is quite impressive, even for a skeptic of the administration. On an existential note for Planet Earth, India and Pakistan took yet another step back from the brink in May when officials from the United States, the only country capable of mediating between the two nuclear-armed states, successfully negotiated a ceasefire between New Delhi and Islamabad. Without this intervention, the outcome would possibly have been catastrophic. On an entirely different continent, Washington united longtime enemies Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, who fought a brutal, thirty-year war often overlooked by the international community. However, serious challenges remain, especially in the form of Rwanda’s militant ally the M23 Movement, if we ever hope to see a lasting peace in the heart of Africa.

Finally, and most interesting to this writer as it occurred in the Post-Soviet Space is the two-week-old US-backed accord between Armenia and Azerbaijan, two former Soviet Republics who have been at each other’s throats since 1988— when the USSR still existed. This brutal conflict, which has caused a heartbreaking 50,000 deaths, as I highlighted in-depth as one of my first entries on this blog, has been de facto resolved since September 2023, with only a definitive, legalized peace settlement to accomplish. The framework of the agreement, which still faces political hurdles in Armenia (Azerbaijan’s political opposition is largely nonexistent), can be found here. The key provision is a proposed corridor interconnecting the region through multiple international borders. While the region where the corridor will be located is called Syunik by the Armenians and Zangezur by the Azeris, some of my readers will prefer the American phrasing: the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity. A suitable name for a president always eager for flattery.

While none of these peace efforts will erase the decades, if not centuries of grudges and structural mistrust at the root of every one of these conflicts, they are, as the guns fall silent, a step in the right direction. While the trade war may prove to be the Trump Administration’s biggest foreign policy mistake, the global peace diplomacy is their biggest triumph. After all, both Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia and President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan, two longtime archenemies, have together nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

There is one factor all these conflicts have in common: none involve a once-fallen superpower determined to regain what it feels is its rightful place as a major regional power and even equal to the United States. And this unique and complicating aspect of the Ukrainian conflict has been the most fundamental obstacle towards even an aerial ceasefire, let alone a halt to the fighting in the Donbas. At the end of last year, this writer chronicled the many reasons why Vladimir Putin, despite his warm words for Donald Trump and more importantly the massive cost of war for his country, has resisted the same steps sought by leaders like Pashinyan and Aliyev. Unlike the United States, the nation from which Putin seeks the ultimate respect as a strategic equal, Putin has little interest in any diplomacy with Ukraine, a nation he believes does not actually exist. And according to the independent Moscow Times, Putin will only agree to meet Zelensky in person if the latter agrees to a “public capitulation.”

So what is my verdict on all the whirlwind diplomacy we have been witnessing in the past week? First of all, I sincerely believe that all the armchair quarterbacking of the Alaska summit was unwarranted. Donald Trump, while moving closer to Putin’s position of a comprehensive settlement (without making clear the terms of one), never once made a serious concession to the old KGB agent. The optics of the red carpet were not helpful, but the summit was still a far cry from Munich. Ultimately, even with all the shared compliments, the high-profile Alaska summit did not reach an agreement to end the war, as I had expected. As for the Washington summit, with almost every notable political leader from Europe present in Washington in an unprecedented diplomatic kowtow (more on that one later), the grand take-away was, again, a summit more pomp and circumstance than practical significance.

Though as far as Zelensky, a man whose popularity at home is sliding downward, was concerned, he at least learned the necessity of a proper dress code at America’s most famous address, even though the “suit” was more like an old-fashioned Eastern European military jacket. Despite Zelensky’s own personal skeletons, his country has received something far more vital than professional outfits: serious discussions on security guarantees, albeit with the details still far from clear. And as far as the European elites are concerned? Beyond their humiliating display of Oval Office deference more characteristic of kids in a classroom than leaders of once-great powers, it’s clear their moral posturing will be little more than background noise as the United States takes the lead role in mediating between the two Slavic archenemies. Though for a declining continent-turned-peninsula, even Kabuki participation in the process is better than no participation at all.

Looking ahead, there persists a plethora of unanswered questions. Will Vladimir Putin, a man who undoubtedly looks down on Zelensky and even the Europeans, agree to meet the Ukrainian President at all? And if so, where? And most importantly, what sort of security guarantees are the United States and Europe prepared to provide lest a future frozen conflict heat up again, especially when troops on the ground are politically unpalatable in the West and a red line for Moscow? Finally, if Putin continues to stonewall the process, as I believe is likely, should we just walk away completely and leave this conflict to the Europeans to work out on their own? Even though Donald Trump has made vague references to a security guarantee, the shape of such an arrangement, especially with firm Russian opposition, is still murky at best, and a mere academic exercise at worst.

In conclusion, I personally believe that when it comes to security guarantees, the United States must thread a needle. As still the world’s most powerful country, I do not see Ukraine as a matter for the Europeans alone and remain steadfast in my belief that we cannot allow a decisive Russian victory. However, I also firmly oppose leaving American soldiers in harm’s way for a non-NATO country who remains one of the most corrupt in Europe. In other words, the path to peace remains as long and thorny as it was in 2022.