After Alaska and Washington: on the road to peace?

Theologian István Zalatnay praises German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's rational position in Magyar Hang:

“Merz has clearly recognised that the first logical step towards sensible progress can only be a ceasefire. ... If Trump can be convinced of this, there is a chance that the process of ending the war will follow a logical order. With a ceasefire as a conditio sine qua non, which could be accompanied by a declaration of principles for a future peace treaty, and then, much later, once mutual intentions have been declared and intensive efforts are ongoing, the signing of a peace treaty - not a peace dictate.”

For the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung all talk about stationing soldiers in Ukraine is premature:

“Trump is more likely to receive the Nobel Prize for Smartest President of all Time than Putin to agree to the stationing of troops from Nato states on the border with Russia. ... Rather than dwelling on scenarios that are highly unlikely at present, the West should focus on a more important and pressing matter: helping Ukraine even more in its fight for survival, mainly by supplying weapons. Germany should finally deliver the Taurus to Kyiv. This would also send a clear message to Putin. But the black-red coalition is also wavering and prefers to discuss a peace mission instead, however unrealistic that may be.”

The conflict in Ukraine could be resolved in a similar way to that between North and South Korea, e-vestnik reasons:

“Parts of Ukraine that have been conquered by Russia could then become 'North Ukraine', so to speak. In practice, the whole of Russia has already become a bigger version of North Korea, a militarised dictatorship that threatens to use nuclear weapons and is isolated from the rest of the world, or at least the developed part of it. The meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska can be compared to Trump's meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un during his first term in office. All words and smiles but nothing concrete. Back then, Trump treated the North Korean dictator with a respect he didn't deserve and boosted his self-confidence as a global player. Now the same has happened with Putin.”

Helsingin Sanomat reflects on Paris's growing influence:

“France is a European military power, a nuclear power and a major manufacturer of defence equipment - and it carries weight within the EU. This gives it an undisputed leadership position in a Europe threatened by Russia. ... The downside is that power could change hands in France in 2027. By then, Macron will have put his country in a position that could be dangerous for Europe. If the far right, which is making headway in opinion polls, wins the elections, the attitude of Europe's powerhouse towards Russia and European cooperation will change.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”