Kristi Raik: Europe has to switch gear after Anchorage

The first impression after Donald Trump's meeting with Vladimir Putin was a measure of relief — tempered by the nauseatingly friendly treatment shown to a war criminal. At least no deals were struck. But as more details emerge about their talks, Europe's security outlook grows darker, writes Kristi Raik in a commentary originally published in Diplomaatia.
At the summit in Alaska, Donald Trump treated Vladimir Putin as an equal and did not adopt a posture befitting the world's leading power, which is by almost every measure many times stronger than Russia.
The only unquestionably significant indicator in which Russia is comparable to the United States as a global power — and ranks second in the world — is its nuclear capability. Trump highlighted this in his remarks, while at the same time passing up the opportunity to point out any of Russia's weaknesses that would allow the U.S., if it wished, to exert pressure on Moscow. Once again, Trump pushed the prospect of exerting such pressure into the future.
It is not easy to identify strategic guiding principles in Trump's actions, but some logic does emerge, and it was confirmed in Anchorage.
First, the U.S. president respects strength and strong-handed autocrats like Putin or Xi (Trump has also not dared to take strong measures against China). Putin's worldview — that great powers have the right to establish their own spheres of influence and treat states within them not as sovereign partners but as vassals — is also visible in Trump's positions. Russia is a great power, Ukraine is not, as Trump acknowledged in his post-summit interview with Fox News. Therefore, in his view, Ukraine must yield to Russia's demands.
Second, Trump stated in the same interview that the United States had made a mistake in the past by pushing Russia closer to China. His efforts to maintain good relations with Putin are evidently driven by a desire to correct that mistake. Although many experts have considered attempts to pull Russia away from China hopeless, the current U.S. administration has not abandoned this goal.
Third, in Trump's worldview, everything is negotiable and economic gain is one of the main motives of human activity. This mindset prevents him from understanding that Putin's motives are entirely different: not profit measured in money, but a lust for power and a fanatical vision of his historical mission and the nature of the Russian empire. Russia is willing to bear major economic losses for the sake of conquering Ukraine. The economic gains Trump has offered in exchange for peace have not altered Putin's goals in Ukraine in the slightest.
Europe's efforts to influence Trump's position on Ukraine seem increasingly hopeless. Many commentators have urged Europeans to give up on such efforts and focus instead on their own actions to support Ukraine. Yet in today's power-based world, dominated by Russia, China and the United States, Europe cannot afford to turn its back on its major ally. This is especially true for Russia's neighbors — Ukraine, Poland, Estonia, Finland and others. If the U.S. were to end its support for Ukraine, the negative consequences for European security would be immediate.
Of course, Europe must make every effort to do more for Ukraine on its own, if necessary even without U.S. support. Using frozen Russian assets for Ukraine, introducing new sanctions against Russia and providing additional military aid are steps Europe could take quickly. These steps would influence not only Ukraine but also the positions of both the U.S. and Russia in a direction more favorable to Europe. All this can be done while simultaneously continuing efforts to persuade Trump. A breakdown of unity between the U.S. and its European allies would serve only Russia's interests.
It seems Putin has presented Trump with a whole series of demands that he cannot currently achieve and that the U.S. alone cannot satisfy. Russia has a habit of testing brutally how far it will be allowed to go. By demanding not only conquered but also unconquered Ukrainian territory, as well as changes to Europe's security architecture and by dismissing calls for an unconditional ceasefire, Putin has tried to shape the framework of upcoming discussions to his advantage.
On Monday in Washington, European leaders must be able to skillfully dismantle this framework and offer instead their own roadmap toward peace. Ukraine has already shown a principled readiness to discuss significant concessions (occupied territories), but only under certain conditions (security guarantees provided by Western countries). It is clear that Russia is not interested in such a solution at present, but remains committed to maximalist demands and to continuing the war.
In the coming weeks, Europe urgently needs success in three enormous tasks: strengthening Ukraine's position, increasing the cost of the war for Russia and persuading Trump that giving in to Putin's demands would be disastrous for Europe and disgraceful for the United States.
--
Editor: Marcus Turovski