A Cold Peace: Trump, Putin, and the Birth of a New U.S.

History rarely repeats itself, but it often rhymes. The Alaska summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin was not a Munich 1938 moment of appeasement, as some critics argue, but rather a Yalta-style recognition of spheres of influence. Two Cold War titans, both seasoned in brinkmanship, showed they had no interest in burning the world to the ground for the sake of Ukraine’s Donbas. The real obstacle is not Moscow or Washington—it is younger European politicians, NATO bureaucrats, and President Volodymyr Zelensky himself, who have mistaken perpetual escalation for strategy.

Comparisons to Neville Chamberlain’s Munich accord miss the mark. Chamberlain handed Hitler control over the Sudetenland—territory Britain did not own and could not defend—while pretending it secured “peace in our time.” In Alaska, Trump and Putin acknowledged what is already reality: Russia controls much of the Donbas, and the local population identifies more with Moscow than Kyiv. Trump did not “give away” Ukraine; he began the process of drawing a boundary both sides can live with. This is not appeasement, but realignment.

The summit floated the prospect of a U.S.–Russia non-aggression pact, paired with guarantees that NATO will not expand further eastward. In return, Moscow would halt its offensive beyond the Donbas. That is not surrender; it is classic cold-blooded bargaining. Each side locks in what matters most: Russia gets recognition of its sphere of influence in eastern Ukraine, while the West gains certainty that Russian armor will not roll toward Warsaw, Riga, or Berlin. The trade stabilizes the frontline and buys space for economic recovery.

The loudest cries of betrayal come not from ordinary Europeans or Americans but from Zelensky himself. His approval rating at home has collapsed to 21%. Western aid has dried up, and his much-vaunted counteroffensives never materialized. For him, Trump’s peace push is a lifeline, not a humiliation. It gives him a chance to claim he delivered an end to the war, rather than presiding over Ukraine’s collapse. In truth, he has little choice. Without Washington’s backing, he cannot fight on, and Trump has made it clear: the U.S. will not fund forever wars.

The deeper play here is not about Donbas, but about Europe’s security architecture. Since 1949, NATO has been the anchor. Yet NATO has drifted, expanding into missions and regions far beyond its original charter, while leaving European nations dependent on Washington’s defense umbrella. Trump has never hidden his disdain for NATO’s freeloaders. What emerged in Alaska was the sketch of an alternative: direct U.S.–EU security guarantees, independent of NATO’s bureaucracy.

The outlines of such an agreement are already implied in Trump’s language and the quiet phone calls racing across Europe. Here’s what it might entail:

Bilateral Guarantees with Brussels: Washington would sign a treaty directly with the European Union (or its largest members), pledging mutual defense against major external aggression. Unlike NATO, this deal would exclude smaller Balkan or Baltic flashpoints that drag the alliance into perpetual crisis.

Limited Defense Triggers: Instead of NATO’s Article 5 “an attack on one is an attack on all,” the agreement could specify narrow scenarios—nuclear threats, cyberattacks on infrastructure, or incursions into EU core territory—that trigger U.S. support. This trims the risk of entanglement in local quarrels.

Shared Burden by Design: The U.S. would insist that Europe match American commitments dollar-for-dollar. For every U.S. carrier group deployed to the Mediterranean, Europe would fund equivalent rapid-reaction brigades or missile defense. This forces Europe to put skin in the game.

Parallel Economic Integration: Security would be tied to trade and energy deals. Europe could gradually unwind its sanctions on Russia in exchange for Moscow’s guarantees, while securing discounted energy flows that stabilize EU economies. The U.S. would benefit by refocusing its exports and rebuilding its industrial base without footing Europe’s defense bill alone.

For all the fiery rhetoric from NATO headquarters and hawkish European capitals, the Alaska summit revealed the true state of play. The United States and Russia, the only two nuclear superpowers capable of annihilating the planet, have no desire to march into Armageddon over Donbas. They have looked each other in the eye and signaled: enough.

The younger generation of European politicians, reared on idealism and digital activism rather than Cold War pragmatism, will fume. They wanted “total victory” and dreamed of NATO’s blue flags flying in Sevastopol. Instead, they face a future where Europe’s security is guaranteed not by NATO’s endless expansion, but by direct deals that bypass it.

This is not weakness. It is recognition of limits. A cold peace beats a hot war. And if Trump, Putin, and even a reluctant Zelensky can hammer out a deal that ends the bloodshed, the critics may scream “traitor” all they like. History, however, will likely record August 2025 as the moment when the world stepped back from the brink—and when two aging Cold War titans reminded everyone that survival, not ideology, is the first duty of statesmen.

Tells from Alaska Summit

Venue = Alaska
Not Brussels, not Geneva. Midpoint between DC and Moscow → signals equal footing.

Business Delegations
Putin didn’t bring only generals — he brought businesspeople. Translation: this is about trade corridors and sanctions relief as much as borders.

“Peace Agreement, Not Ceasefire”
Trump’s wording wasn’t sloppy. That phrase is a marker of permanence, not a pause.

Phones in Europe Ringing Same Day
If this was theater, EU leaders would have condemned it. Instead, they quietly dialed in. That’s tacit buy-in.

Zelensky Flying to DC Within 48 Hours
If there were “no deal,” Z wouldn’t be summoned. His trip is proof a framework exists — he’s being walked into it.

US–EU Security Pact Floated
The press downplayed it, but this is the pivot: Europe could get guarantees directly from Washington outside NATO. If that sticks, NATO becomes redundant — and Moscow has no reason to posture. That’s a tectonic shift.

“Putin...trying to kill as many civilians at night as he can”

Ukraine is probably the fourth largest arms producer in the world (after the US, Russia and China).

It would make sense for Russians to attack the Ukrainian weapons factories rather than kill a dozen or so Ukrainian civilians occasionally.

Kiev has about 320 square miles, so it might receive about one targeted 115/200 lb. drone warhead per 2.5 square miles per day.

If one also includes the shot down drones that explode on Kiev, that might amount about one 115/200 lb. drone warhead (targeted/free fall) per square mile of Kiev per day.

As most Kiev civilians need be concerned, the drones are in reality a noisy nightly nuisance.

Of course, if the Ukrainian evening news shows images of say 10 strikes daily, the Kiev civilians might get as scared as many American liberals are of guns.

What we demand in this war, therefore, is nothing peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world as against force and selfish aggression. All the peoples of the world are in effect partners in this interest, and for our own part we see very clearly that unless justice be done to others it will not be done to us. The program of the world’s peace, therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible program, as we see it, is this:

I. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.

II. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.

III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.

IV. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.

V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.

VI. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.

VII. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired.

VIII. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all.

IX. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.

X. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development.

XI. Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into.

XII. The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.

XIII. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.

XIV. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.

https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/President_Wilson%27s_Fourteen_Points

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.