Aletho News

Trump’s make or break moment after the Alaska summit

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – August 18, 2025

While Western media fixated on optics and diplomatic jabs, the Alaska summit quietly marked a turning point that shifted the conversation from temporary ceasefires to the possibility of lasting peace.

This moment demands clarity from Donald Trump: will he commit to a peace-first strategy or allow his European allies to drag the US deeper into costly, unwinnable conflicts?

The Summit

In the lead-up to the Alaska summit, Washington’s playbook was predictable: press Moscow for a ceasefire. President Donald Trump echoed what had become NATO’s default position. In a videoconference just 48 hours before the summit, European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky aligned on ceasefire being the top priority.

But ceasefires are rarely solutions. They’re political sedatives—short-term fixes that freeze conflicts without resolving them. Therefore, at the Alaska summit, Russia’s Vladimir Putin flipped the script. Rather than another temporary pause, he proposed a permanent peace framework that could involve a security pact involving mutual guarantees from the US and Russia, limits on NATO expansion, and a demilitarized buffer that includes Ukraine. It was the clearest signal yet that Moscow wasn’t angling for a breather; it wanted a structural reset.

Most importantly, the US President was able to see merit in this framework. In social media post, Trump said,

“A great and very successful day in Alaska! The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late-night phone call with [Ukrainian] President Zelensky of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO. It was determined by all that the best way [was] to go directly to a peace agreement … and not a mere ceasefire agreement, which often does not hold up.”

For the Europeans, this is not only a shocking development but also a glaring indication that they do not and cannot control the peace process in the sense that they can unilaterally dictate its terms. Therefore, they are already raising so-called “questions” about whether even the peace agreement will hold or not, or whether Russia can be trusted or not, or whether they can normalize their ties with Russia or not, or whether it is serious about peace. These questions are little more than attempts to throw wrenches into what probably is the best opportunity to bring peace to Europe.

Donald Trump faces a choice

Though he publicly aligned with Vladimir Putin on the need for a permanent peace agreement, President Donald Trump now faces intense resistance from a familiar front: hawkish European leaders who would rather prolong the war—and pull Washington deeper into it—than confront the core issue driving the conflict.

The choice before Trump is stark. He can either listen to Europe’s war camp or to Moscow’s push for a comprehensive peace deal. If he sticks with the narrow, short-term goal of a ceasefire while ignoring Russia’s central demand—ending NATO’s eastward expansion—he risks dragging the US into a grinding geopolitical entanglement. Worse, he’ll be walking away from one of his signature campaign promises: to end America’s endless wars and ‘Make America Great Again’.

Rejecting Russia’s terms outright won’t come without consequences. It would require doubling down on the existing strategy: ramping up sanctions, sending more weapons to Ukraine, and locking the US into a long-term conflict with no clear off-ramp. Such a move would not only escalate tensions with Moscow but also push Russia and its allies, such as China, to further reinforce the politics of creating a new, alternative global order. The idea of a parallel world order—already gathering momentum—would gain new political urgency and legitimacy. Trump has already clashed with BRICS members like India through trade wars and punitive rhetoric. A wider conflict could force him into even more confrontations on multiple fronts.

But there is another path—one that reverses the pressure. Instead of bowing to European hawks, Trump could put the heat on them. If Europe refuses to address the root causes of the war, the US could begin scaling back military support for NATO and Ukraine. Let Brussels handle the fallout. Such a move would send a clear message: if Europe wants perpetual conflict, it can fight it alone. (In fact, Donald Trump did give such statements during his election campaign.) And European leaders would know the likely outcome, that is, without US backing, Ukraine risks losing even more territory to Russia, with little chance of recovery.

As such, this is Trump’s moment of reckoning. He can choose to steer the US toward a long-overdue peace, or sleepwalk into another forever war, one that reshapes the global order and leaves America footing the bill.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

August 18, 2025 - Posted by aletho | Militarism, Russophobia | NATO, Russia, Ukraine, United States