After Trump's failed Russia summit in Alaska, European unity is to be commended, but the outlook for Ukraine remains bleak

It can hardly be called a surprise anymore, but US President Trump has once again proven himself an abominable negotiator. In his mad pursuit of a Nobel Peace Prize, the "dealmaker" in the White House still seems convinced he can end the war in Ukraine by appeasing the aggressor.

Trump's latest diplomatic offensive is characterized by an equally reckless and clumsy rush forward: in Alaska, he rolled out the red carpet for Vladimir Putin, a dictator who launched the war against Ukraine eleven years ago and is internationally wanted as a war criminal. Trump's obsessive preferential treatment of Putin is shameful for all the values ​​the United States has stood for since World War II. As president of the—still—most powerful country on earth, Trump holds the cards to hasten the end of Putin's war. The US, along with Europe, is capable of squeezing the Russian economy to the point that continuation of the war becomes impossible.

Trump has been sparsely critical of the ongoing Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilians in recent months, but he has never issued an unequivocal condemnation. On the contrary: Trump continues to suggest that Ukraine started the war. Neither has his predecessor, Biden. Former President Obama was blamed this week for Russia's annexation of Crimea.

The only one who consistently escapes Trump's appalling foreign policy is Vladimir Putin. In Alaska, Trump gave away virtually everything he had carefully built up over the summer months: the threat of severe sanctions if Putin didn't agree to a ceasefire.

Without Putin having to make a single concession, everything is off the table after "Alaska": the sanctions and the American demand for a ceasefire. With a smile, the Russian president managed, in just a few hours, to steer Trump back to the Ukraine jargon the Kremlin has been using for years.

Trump, as usual, presented the meeting as a resounding success, claiming he had initiated a direct meeting between Putin and President Zelenskyy, followed by a trilateral meeting with Trump himself. There is even speculation about possible locations.

But here too, Trump proved uninterested in the details that inevitably accompany peace talks. He was focused on the moment: the world leader "ending" his sixth (or seventh) war. In the real world, things are quite different: the likelihood of Putin sitting down with Zelenskyy anytime soon seems slim.

After the American fiasco in Anchorage, it was up to Ukraine and its European allies to pick up the pieces. No fewer than six European leaders and NATO chief Mark Rutte rushed to Washington last Monday in Zelensky's wake to repair as much of the damage Trump had caused as possible. It must be said: the war in Ukraine, the Russian threat, and the fickleness of the unreliable ally in Washington have ensured that Europe has matured and increasingly operates as a united front. Undeniable gains have been made in this regard over the past year.

But whether the high-ranking European visit has improved Ukraine's position remains to be seen. After Putin's imperial reception on American soil, and with the threat of sanctions off the table, he has no reason to stop the missile attacks on Ukrainian cities. Trump seems to have already forgotten those bloody attacks – which continued unabated around the time of the Alaska summit.

Hasty American-European talks on security guarantees for a potential peacekeeping force are always useful, but also premature as long as Putin has no interest in a ceasefire or lasting peace. Let there be no misunderstanding: Moscow doesn't mention peace; Ukraine is simply not recognized as a sovereign nation. As long as Putin isn't genuinely willing to engage in peace talks—nothing points in that direction—vague American promises about "NATO-style" security guarantees for Europe and Ukraine are nothing more than that. Moreover, Trump's world knows no guarantees; the mood could change tomorrow. Europe now knows he prefers to do business with Putin. And the 79-year-old president's intended successor, J.D. Vance, has even less regard for Ukraine. Moreover, it would be naive to think that Moscow would simply agree to a ceasefire that must be maintained with European troops, NATO aircraft, and American warships in the Black Sea.

It's not a bright prospect for Ukraine and Europe. As long as the European allies are unable, economically and militarily, to force Russia into peace, they will have to continue to use every diplomatic means to keep the fickle American ally on board. And, if possible, to bring it to reason.