Posted on 08/16/2025 9:14:15 AM PDT by EBH
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.
The outlines of a deal are already visible, and they rest on four pillars.
1. Not Appeasement, but Realignment
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.
2. A Security Trade, Not a Capitulation
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.
3. Zelensky’s Weak Hand
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.
4. A Strategic Reset for Europe
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.
What a U.S.–EU Security Deal Without NATO Could Look Like
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.
Beyond NATO: Toward a Cold Peace
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.
Well, I think that sort of happened when Zelensky wasn’t invited to the table. We’ll have to wait and see going forward how it shakes out but Starmer and a few others are already recalculating that this effort works.
The only reason it would fail at this point is if NATO or Zelensky do something really, really black swanish.
Note especially the initial part of Wilson’s point 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.”
Interesting. Hadn’t thought of/realized that.
Note also the initial parts of Wilson’s point 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.”
There’s no legitimate reason the two sides can’t fully and publicly state what they want.
links to various webpages containing the text of the treaty:
https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Peace_Treaty_of_Versailles
“Interesting. Hadn’t thought of/realized that.”
True, we have a collection of Globalists, Zeepers, Neocons, Leftists, and Media types who seem to have ZERO MEMORY of what the Neocons did to Yugoslavia when they go preaching to Putin about the “Sanctity of Borders”.
That’s why we should NEVER listen to them.
“Now he has attacked Ukraine and is trying to kill as many civilians at night as he can.”
If you cannot restrain your emotions here, please find another forum to release them.
“This is not well-reasoned. It’s a goat rope and I hope we stay out of it. I want nothing to do with EU until the countries in the recognize basic human rights, secure their borders against invasion, remove alien criminals, and take pride in their deep and glorious culture and contributions to Western civilization.’
...and also go back to being FREE COUNTRIES, rather than locking down dissent to levels that would make Stalin blush.
Ah...yes.
But, Putin is no Tsar Nicholas, nor is he quite yet a Lenin.
Lenin never met Wilson.
And this isn’t 1918.
“When I traverse a foreign land, my US passport implies the full military might of the USA may be applied to provide for my safety.”
That was certainly the case in Grenada, with our medical students there back when Reagan sent the boys in.
“while securing discounted energy flows that stabilize EU economies.”
The relatively poor Russians should subsidize the climate-damaging hydrocarbon consumption of the relative rich residents of the EU?
If a nations at war and their are pockets of folks pulling for the other side - they probably look like traitors to the rest of the people especially when the rest of the people are getting killed and bombed regularly.
Are the Ukraine people and the Russians different ethnicity of people? I understand they are two different countries but how is being a ethnic Russian living in the Ukraine different than being a ethnic Ukrainian living in the Ukraine.
Lots of my neighbors changed from Russian into Ukrainians overnight about 3.5 years ago, some seem to have transition back to being Russians. This lead me to believe ethnicity/culturally its a distinction without a difference.
Where you stand is usually pretty close to where you sit so is the discrimination based on location of where you live in Ukraine rather then ethnic/culture?
Is it anti-Russian discrimination or those people over there are a bunch of Russian sympathizers who are aiding and abetting an invading Russia.
I don't know you tell me but it looks like two groups of corrupt Russians (redundant) killing each other and causing all sorts of ancillary BS for the rest of the world.
I remember around that time, SNL did a skit where the US invaded Switzerland, because a US Tourist there was shortchanged.
The NATO treaty might need adjustment.
This should only be publicly worked on months after peace is brought to Ukraine.
The Baltic states should not be given needless cause to fret.
Putin should not be given any basis to further threaten the Baltic states.
good article, thanks
In the USA, discrimination is a black and white matter, pun intended, but elsewhere it is often tribal.
In the CCCP, and in Donbas, Russians were often first among ‘equals’, causing lingering WOKE-like resentment.
Stalin, although Georgian, thought Russians were the “Master Race” of the Soviet Union. He had all the Jewish Bolsheviks killed.
You post all kinds of nonsense and say that I am emotional!? And as to telling me to leave, you be my example and pull out of town first....
“You post all kinds of nonsense and say that I am emotional!?”
Unhinged would be describe you, get some help, please.
With your illogic Most of South America should belong to Spain since they speak Spanish.
In case you haven’t heard, when Russia occupied Ukraine after WWII Russia made everyone speak Russian in Ukraine. So, someone who speaks Russian in Ukraine is not necessarily a Russian!!! Get with reality!
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.