After Alaska, the world came to Washington: What Trump, Zelenskyy and Europe did—and didn’t—decide

After Alaska, the world came to Washington: What Trump, Zelenskyy and Europe did—and didn’t—decide

Washington summit at a glance

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House on Monday, joined later by a rare assemblage of European leaders — including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, French President Emmanuel Macron, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and Finnish President Alexander Stubb — to discuss a path toward ending Russia’s war on Ukraine. The gathering followed Friday’s Trump–Putin summit in Alaska, which produced no ceasefire, and shifted the conversation in Washington toward a broader peace framework, security guarantees for Ukraine, and contentious territorial questions. European Council President António Costa scheduled an emergency virtual leaders’ meeting for Tuesday to debrief outcomes and coordinate next steps.

The road to Washington

Friday’s Alaska summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin ended hours earlier than planned, with no ceasefire agreement and no joint Q&A. Trump called the session “extremely productive” but said “there’s no deal until there’s a deal,” while Putin alluded to unspecified “agreements.” The optics — a red carpet welcome, a military flyover, and the two leaders riding together — drew scrutiny, even as talks yielded no concrete halt to fighting. Trump later told Fox News the onus was now “up to Zelenskyy” and indicated previously threatened “severe” consequences for Russia were not being pursued, at least for now. Early expert assessments argued the meeting conferred image gains on Putin while shelving talk of tougher sanctions, without extracting verifiable changes in Moscow’s behavior.

Inside the White House meetings

Trump and Zelenskyy held a bilateral meeting before a larger session with European leaders. The White House signaled no joint press conference, underscoring a day oriented around closed-door negotiation rather than public theatrics. Trump publicly questioned the need for an immediate ceasefire, arguing that such pauses can allow one side to “rebuild,” a stance at odds with Kyiv’s push for a truce first. Germany’s Merz countered in the multilateral setting that a ceasefire should precede any trilateral summit with Putin, reflecting ongoing transatlantic divergence over sequencing. Trump also said territorial exchanges would need to be discussed — a red flag for Kyiv and many European capitals — even as allies sought to lock in credible security assurances for Ukraine.

European leaders made a point of arriving together with Zelenskyy, a show of unity aimed at preventing Ukraine from being isolated and pressured into concessions. Their presence followed widespread concern over Zelenskyy’s exclusion from the Alaska talks and signaled Europe’s intent to shape the agenda in Washington and beyond.

What emerged — and what didn’t

A ceasefire or final peace deal did not materialize on Monday. However, U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff said Putin had agreed in Alaska that the United States and European allies could extend “Article 5–like” security guarantees to Ukraine as part of a future settlement — a notable shift if borne out in follow-on diplomacy. Trump also floated convening a trilateral with Zelenskyy and Putin “if they want him there,” and planned to call Putin after the meetings. The day’s discussions kept two thorny issues at center stage: security guarantees robust enough to deter renewed aggression, and territorial control along or near the current frontline — with Trump indicating the latter “will need to be discussed,” even as Ukraine and many allies reject rewarding conquest.

Trump emphasized that Europe would bear a larger share of the long-term security burden, while reiterating his preference to prioritize a comprehensive peace agreement over a ceasefire. European institutions, meanwhile, prepared for rapid coordination: the European Council’s emergency video meeting will digest Washington’s outcomes and attempt to align EU positions on guarantees, aid, and negotiation parameters.

The stakes and implications

For Ukraine: The immediate risk is pressure to concede on territory or NATO ambitions in exchange for security guarantees whose credibility and scope remain undefined. Kyiv continues to seek a ceasefire first to halt civilian suffering and stabilize lines before any political talks. European proposals under discussion include deepening long-term training and equipment pipelines and, postwar, deploying a reassurance presence away from the front to deter renewed invasion — all aimed at making any settlement enforceable rather than symbolic.

For Europe: Monday’s united front was designed to keep Ukraine from negotiating alone and to preserve leverage over terms that affect continent-wide security. The emergency EU leaders’ call underscores how much Brussels wants to shape guarantees and reject a deal that legitimizes territorial changes by force. Divergence with Washington over ceasefire sequencing is real, but leaders sought to keep channels open and avoid a split that Moscow could exploit.

For Russia: The Alaska optics were a public-relations boost that signaled a return to high-level engagement without conceding on the battlefield. Analysts note that shelving new sanctions talk and pivoting away from a ceasefire-first approach could give Moscow time and space unless countered by concrete, enforceable guarantees for Ukraine. That dynamic raises the price of any eventual settlement and the need for verification mechanisms that survive political cycles.

What to watch next

Trilateral diplomacy: Whether and when a Trump–Zelenskyy–Putin meeting is set, and under what preconditions. A meeting without at least tacit parameters on shelling and civilian protections would face immediate legitimacy challenges.

Security guarantees detail: The scope, signatories, triggers, and resources behind any “Article 5–like” framework will determine whether it deters aggression or becomes a paper shield.

Ceasefire sequencing: Europe’s push for a truce first versus Washington’s “agreement-first” framing remains a live debate with real consequences for civilians and battlefield momentum.

Territorial red lines: Any language implying Ukrainian territorial concessions will test transatlantic unity and Kyiv’s domestic political tolerance; expect intense parsing of maps, terms, and timelines.

Sanctions and aid posture: Whether threatened secondary sanctions stay on ice — and how that interacts with ramped-up European training, equipment, and financing packages to harden Ukraine’s defense.

Battlefield realities: Military trends will shape diplomacy; shifts at the front can narrow or widen the space for acceptable terms long before principles are drafted.