A critical meeting is set to unfold, with potential repercussions extending far beyond Ukraine, impacting the future of Europe. Anticipation surrounds the meeting between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Reports suggest that Trump has already begun to apply pressure on Zelenskyy before the meeting. A central concern is the possible outcomes if negotiations between Trump, Zelenskyy, and European leaders fail to produce a consensus. The question is: what will happen?
It’s believed that Trump might employ strategies of persuasion, potentially including incentives, threats, or pressure to influence Zelenskyy’s decisions. Prior to the meeting, Trump has already taken steps to exert influence.
Trump has given Zelenskyy the authority to make the final decisions. He has also issued a warning: if Zelenskyy does not agree to Putin’s terms for a ceasefire, Ukraine could face territorial losses similar to those of Crimea. Putin has already made clear that even without a ceasefire agreement, he intends to hold onto regions such as Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson. Given these circumstances, a significant question arises: what alternatives does the United States have if a resolution cannot be achieved?
One potential scenario is that the United States might choose to remain detached from the war, much like its initial stance during World War I and World War II. The US could maintain neutrality until the war expands into Europe. Once the conflict reaches Europe, the United States might then choose to align itself with the winning side.
The United States’ involvement in both World War I (1917) and World War II began after a period of non-intervention. The US declared war on Germany in 1917, three years after the start of World War I. During World War II, the US joined the Allies against Japan nearly two years into the war. In both conflicts, the US ultimately emerged victorious. The reasons behind America’s entry into each war were specific. It appears that the US may have chosen to support the more powerful party.
Now, a critical consideration is whether the United States will support Russia or Europe if the Ukraine war were to spread across Europe. This decision is expected to be based on an assessment of the involved parties’ economic and military strengths.
The world holds onto the hope that the White House meeting will bring peace. However, this outcome seems less likely, largely because of European preparations, which could contribute to an expansion of the conflict. France and Britain have formulated a post-ceasefire strategy, which involves the potential deployment of a reassurance force in Ukraine.
European nations have agreed to the decisions of France and Britain.
Zelenskyy might request a security guarantee from Trump following a ceasefire. Yet, Putin’s willingness to permit the deployment of a reassurance force in Ukraine is doubtful. NATO has stationed a reassurance force in nine Eastern European nations, providing security guarantees to allied countries.
The Reassurance Force is deployed in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia. The forces of four nations border the northwest of Russia. Poland shares a border with Belarus, a Russian ally. Additionally, Romania and Bulgaria are connected to the Black Sea. Ukraine is unique in that it does not have NATO troops stationed close to the Russian border. It’s therefore unlikely that Putin would agree to the deployment of a reassurance force in this area.
Europe faces a singular option: to continue providing Ukraine with weapons. This approach could help to keep Russia engaged in the war. Europe is reportedly prepared for this. It is claimed that Ukraine has commenced production of its long-range cruise missile, the Flamingo.
Although Ukraine claims the missile to be domestically produced, the technology is believed to originate from Europe. This could provide Ukraine with the capability to launch attacks up to 3000 km inside Russia without implicating Europe.
