Donald Trump’s back-to-back meetings with Vladimir Putin in Alaska and Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Washington were billed as pivotal for ending the war in Ukraine. In practice, they produced little beyond confusion and concern. Trump’s message was blunt: unless Kyiv and Europe accept his plan, fighting will continue. The plan itself leaned toward Moscow’s demands, including suggestions of territorial concessions. For Ukraine and Europe, this was not a roadmap to peace but an attempt to pressure them into surrender.
The immediate outcome is that no breakthrough was achieved. Russia continues its strikes, Ukraine continues to defend, and Europe remains firm that no peace agreement can come at the expense of Ukrainian territory. The U.S. position, at least as voiced by Trump, has drifted into the role of arms supplier rather than strategic ally. Washington still provides hardware, but its political influence on shaping a just settlement has diminished.
European leaders who joined Zelenskyy in Washington used the summit to underline their red lines. They emphasized that Ukraine must have the final say in any negotiations, that territorial concessions are unacceptable, and that robust security guarantees must be built into the future. Beyond these statements of principle, however, little concrete progress was made. No binding agreements were signed, no new aid packages were unveiled, and no ceasefire terms were established.
On the military side, Europe has already launched several initiatives, including emergency ammunition purchases led by the Czech Republic and the rotation of air defense systems to protect Ukrainian cities. These measures are significant, but they remain temporary fixes rather than long-term solutions. Industrial ramp-up is underway to expand Europe’s own munitions production, but full capacity will not be reached until late 2025. In the meantime, Ukraine faces continuing shortages that limit its ability to regain territory or decisively shift the war.
Financially, the EU has mechanisms in place, such as the Ukraine Facility and the use of frozen Russian assets, to provide predictable support. Yet here too the results are modest. Disbursements are regular but not transformative, and they do not fundamentally alter the balance of resources between Ukraine and Russia. Obstacles within the EU, particularly from Hungary, continue to slow or dilute collective action, forcing Europe to rely on coalitions of willing states rather than unanimous decisions.
The political outcome of these meetings is therefore clearer than the military one: Europe is emerging as the central actor, while the U.S., under Trump, risks drifting to the sidelines. But Europe’s leadership remains more about holding the line than driving the war toward resolution. The continent has shown unity in rejecting Trump’s proposals, but unity has not yet translated into decisive steps on the battlefield.
In hindsight, the two summits revealed more about what will not happen than what will. Trump will not deliver a balanced peace deal. Russia will not pause its aggression for talks. Europe will not concede Ukrainian land. What remains is a war grinding on, with Europe slowly assuming greater responsibility but without breakthroughs in sight. The outcomes, for now, are statements, stopgaps, and an unfinished shift in leadership—far from the decisive turning point many had hoped for.
