The White House speaks more importantly than the US-Russia summit in Alaska

The White House meeting may be even more important for the future of Ukraine on Monday – and for all of Europe’s security – than the US -Russia Summit in Alaska last Friday in Alaska.

On the surface, this collection of Putin-Trump seemed to live up to every expectation.

There was no termination of fire, no sanctions, no big messages.

Ukraine and Europe were about to cut off a deal prepared behind closed doors by the two most important nuclear forces in the world?

No, obviously, if Ukraine and its partners can prevent it.

The presence of Sir Kiir Starmer, President Macron, Chancellor Mertz and other leaders, along with President Zelenski in Washington, is more than to make sure that he is not again planted in the oval office, the way he did on February 28.

They are determined to impress Donald Trump two things: first, that there can be no peace deal for Ukraine without the direct involvement of Ukraine and second that this It should be supported by security guarantees on Cast ironS

Above all, European leaders want the US president to see that Ukraine and Europe are presenting a United Front and they are eager to ensure that he is not swinging at his obvious personal rapprochement with Vladimir Putin to give himself the demands of Russian leaders.

Sir Kiir Starmer’s diplomatic skills will be tested here.

Trump likes Starmer and listens to it and in a month Trump will come to the UK on a state visit.

He also likes Mark Rute, the NATO Secretary -General who will be present, a person who is sometimes called the Trump whisper.

The US President seems to be no less a favorite of President Macron, and the White House was a sharp critical recently for his intention to unconditionally recognize the Palestinian state in the next UN General Assembly.

For the peaceful deal in Ukraine to have some chance of working, something has to give.

European leaders have often said that international borders cannot be changed by force, and President Zelenski said again and again, he will not give up Earth, and moreover, the constitution of Ukraine forbids it.

But Putin wants Donbass, which his powers are already in control of about 85 percent of, and he has absolutely no intention to never return the Crimea.

Still, as the former Estonia Prime Minister, and now the best diplomat in Europe, Kaja Kalas, told me once: The victory for Ukraine in this war should not deal exclusively with the conquest of the occupied land.

If Ukraine can receive the type of security guarantees from Article 5, which is spoken of in order to feel any future Russian aggression and thus protect its independence as a free and sovereign state, then it would be a form of victory.

Now it seems that what the US and Russia are discussing is a proposal that is widely traded in some Ukrainian land to guarantee the security that it will not have to give up more than Russia.

But the brands in question are huge.

Can Ukraine accept a deal that ends the war, but it costs to land it, especially when so many thousands have died, trying to save this land?

If asked to Give up the remaining 30 percent of Donetsk Rolast The fact that Russia has not yet occupied then leaves the path west to Kiev dangerously insufficient defense?

And what of the very praised Starmer coalition of desire?

More talks about tens of thousands of boots on Earth have since been scaled back.

It is now more about “protecting the sky and seas,” while helping Ukraine to restore its army.

But even if peace explodes on the battlefield, we are still in dangerous territory.

Every military expert I have talked to believes that as soon as the Boy stops Putin, he will restore his army, build more weapons until he is in a position, maybe in just three to four years to take more land.

If and when this happens, it will be a brave typhoon or pilot of the F35, which is ready to fire this first rocket on an advanced Russian column.