White House talks more important than US-Russia summit in Alaska

The meeting at the White House, Monday, is quite likely that for the future of Ukraine – and for all the security of all Europe – it may be more important than the US -Russia summit in Alaska last Friday.

On the surface, the Putin-Trump combination seemed to be experiencing every expectation.

Armistice, no sanctions, there was no big announcement.

Was Ukraine and Europe to be cut off from an agreement cooked by the world’s leading nuclear powers behind closed doors?

Apparently, not if Ukraine and its partners can prevent it.

Together with President Zelensky in Washington, Sir Keir Starmer, President Macron, Chancellor Merz and other leaders are more than making sure that he was not ambushed in the oval office as he did on February 28th.

Donald is determined to influence Trump two things: First, there cannot be a peace agreement for Ukraine without Ukraine’s direct participation. ‘cast iron’ should be supported with security guarantees.

First of all, the European leaders want the US president to see that Ukraine and Europe offers a unified front, and willing to ensure that Vladimir Putin and the obvious personal relationship did not fulfill the demands of Russian leaders.

This is where Sir Keir Starmer’s diplomatic skills will be tested very much.

Trump loves Starmer and listens to him, and in a month Trump will come to England during a state visit.

In addition, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who will continue, sometimes loves a man called ‘Trump Whisperer’.

US President seems to be less fond of Macron, and the White House has recently criticized a Palestinian state in the next UN General Assembly.

He must give something to have a chance to work for a peace agreement in Ukraine.

European leaders often said that international borders cannot be forcibly changed and that President Zelensky would not give up the land many times, and that the Ukrainian constitution forbids it.

However, Putin wants Donbas, which is already controlled by 85 percent of his powers, and he certainly has no intention of giving back the Crimea.

Nevertheless, as the former Estonian Prime Minister and now the best diplomat in Europe Kaja Kallas told me: the victory for Ukraine in this war is not only about conquering the occupied land.

This will be a kind of victory if Ukraine can obtain 5 types of security guarantees, which are sufficient to deter her future Russian aggression and thus to preserve its independence as a free and sovereign state.

Now, what the United States and Russia are arguing are an offer that makes some Ukrainian lands in a wide range of trade to guarantee that it will not have to give up Russia any longer.

But the question marks are very big.

He can accept an agreement that ends the Ukrainian war, but can it cost the land, especially when thousands of people die when they die while trying to save that land?

If desired Leave the remaining 30 percent of Donetsk Oblast Is that when Russia has not yet occupied, is it dangerously vulnerable to Kiev towards the west?

What about Starmer’s willing coalition?

Previously, the placement of tens of thousands of boats on the ground has been scaled since then.

Now it is more about to rebuild Ukraine’s army while ‘protecting the sky and the seas’.

But even if peace breaks out on the battlefield, we are still in the dangerous area.

Every military expert I talk about believes that the moment the fight stops, Putin will rebuild his army, perhaps he will build more weapons until he is in a position to get more soil in a short period of three to four years.

If this happens, and when, the first missile will be a bold typhoon or F35 pilot who is ready to ignite a Russian column.