The POWER SHIFT since the ALASKA SUMMIT /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Patrick Henningsen

Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store

The discussion frames the Ukraine war as largely theatrical while the reality on the ground strongly favors Russia. Putin has been consistent in his demands since mid-2024, while neither Zelensky nor Europe has shifted their positions, leaving little room for negotiations. Trump, however, invested political capital in summits (Alaska, Oval Office) despite low chances of progress, driven more by U.S. domestic pressures—he must be seen as working toward peace since he campaigned on ending the war quickly.

The Alaska talks effectively confirmed Russia’s position: negotiations first, ceasefire second. This gave Moscow greater legitimacy, since if talks fail, the blame is more likely to fall on Trump, Europe, or Ukraine, not Russia. Meanwhile, Europe and Ukraine show no signs of compromise, and actions like the attack on the Druzhba pipeline suggest sabotage of peace efforts.

Trump has tried to reframe U.S. involvement by selling weapons to NATO rather than directly funding Ukraine, presenting it as a “win” for his base. But this carries risks: Europe may use the weapons more aggressively against Russia, potentially escalating the conflict, while the U.S. loses direct control over how they are deployed. Some European leaders, like Starmer, are using increasingly bellicose rhetoric, raising fears of wider war, though others (Hungary, Slovakia) remain resistant.

➡️ Bottom line: Russia’s position is entrenched and strengthened by Trump’s diplomacy, Europe is divided, Ukraine is still defiant, and Trump’s moves seem driven more by U.S. domestic politics than by realistic prospects for peace—while the risk of escalation through European actions remains high.