After Alaska and Washington: on the road to peace?
Before security guarantees for Ukraine can take effect, Russia must stop its war of aggression. After the summit meetings initiated by US President Donald Trump in Alaska and Washington, Europe's press debates whether the world has come closer to this goal and what steps must now follow.
Three-way summit dangerous at this point
In a Facebook post picked up by NV, Ukrainian diplomat Lana Serkal warns of a trap :
“A trilateral meeting between Zelensky, Trump and Putin would be the worst option at this stage of the negotiations. It would be a hopeless trap, and I only hope I'm not the only one who realises this by now. Such a format is only an option once everything has been agreed, the treaty texts have been drawn up and our side has worked on the terms in joint working groups. Negotiations with the Russians must be conducted by a united Europe - with each ally contributing its own expertise on how to deal with Russian tactics.”
Time is not on Ukraine's side
Political analyst Balázs Jarábik describes in Új Szó the enormous pressure on the Ukrainian government:
“After all the scepticism in Alaska, the meeting in Washington was somewhat reassuring for Kyiv. But only because the bar was set so low after the scandalous meeting in February. In Kyiv, where I am now, people know full well that this war isn't sustainable in the long run. A shortage of recruits and the lack of rotation are wearing down the army - the pillar on which the entire state rests. At the same time Kyiv cannot abandon the rest of Donbas because such a compromise would put a strain on the country's cohesion and internal security. Zelensky is trying to buy time - but time is not on Ukraine's side.”
Trump pursuing his own interests
Peace is not the real goal of Trump's summits, T24 contends:
“After the meeting in Alaska, Trump abandoned his approach of seeking a 'quick ceasefire' and shifted towards the idea of a comprehensive peace as sought by the Kremlin. However, this route seems to be more of a PR campaign than a genuine peace effort. ... At its core, the peace Trump promises boils down to a balance of interests between two powerful men. His vision of a 'great peace' foresees a reward for the Kremlin and a burden for Kyiv, with the danger of the world being left with a new 'half-peace' rather than a lasting solution for Ukraine.”
Worst-case scenario
Seznam Zprávy speculates on what could happen if things really go downhill:
“If Trump's health plays along he'll be in power for another three and a half years, during which time the world will probably grow tired of summits. Meanwhile Russia, supported by Iran, China and North Korea, will slowly advance, taking control of thousands more square kilometres [of Ukrainian territory]. The jaded Russian public, paralysed by the same fear as under Stalin, will get drunk on cheap vodka and state propaganda. And the European fifth columns in the form of various anti-EU and supposedly anti-elite, but in reality pro-Russian parties, will grow stronger in the elections and undermine the social consensus that evil must be confronted.”