A Temporary Victory for Ukraine and Europe… But Will It Last?

Ukraine and Europe held their breath as they watched Zelensky stride confidently in his new suit into the same Oval Office where his disastrous February meeting had taken place. This time, however, he went further—joking with Trump calmly and charmingly, gently noting that his host had not changed his suit either. He then handed Trump a letter from Olena Zelenska to Melania Trump, thanking her for her historic message to Putin, in which she demanded the return of the 20,000 Ukrainian children abducted by Russian forces.

Despite the haunting memories tied to February’s meeting, the August encounter was markedly different. It was the fruit of frantic Ukrainian and European strategic and diplomatic efforts, resulting in rapid shifts that may alter much of the Trump administration’s calculus.

One of the clearest signs of seriousness was the absence of the Vice President from the meeting, the reduction of Whitkov’s role, and a unified European position built around a carefully drafted speech designed to appeal to Trump and highlight his role. Trump reiterated his commitment to Article Five of the NATO Charter, affirming collective defense against any attack on a member state.

Zelensky’s appearance rested on firm European support and on a NATO that seemed to regain momentum and renew its strength. British Prime Minister Starmer coordinated closely with Zelensky on the details of his dialogue with Trump. At the second meeting, European leaders spread out as an unprecedented front—something Putin surely noticed—standing by Zelensky and presenting Trump with an acceptable negotiating formula on territorial matters.

This formula included Ukraine’s agreement to temporary new borders while retaining the right to reclaim its lands peacefully, in exchange for receiving strategic security guarantees similar to those provided by NATO (“NATO-like”). Thus, the Europeans avoided embarrassing Trump or breaking his commitments, skillfully reshaping the rules of the diplomatic game.

The battle shifted from an unequal duel between Putin and Zelensky to a multi-sided balance-of-power contest, managed through new alliances involving both Europe and the U.S., with the aim of forcing Putin to show his hand.

Once the territorial proposal was introduced, the core of the diplomatic game became the European—or “quasi-Atlantic”—security guarantees. This coordinated game evolved into a test of endurance where the first to weaken would lose.

Putin now faces two choices: either escalate and reject these guarantees, thus sabotaging Trump’s mediation and nullifying Alaska’s gains; or accept terms that save face by cementing his long-term hold over some territory, while dropping his demand for Ukraine’s disarmament.

The European offer includes binding security agreements that enforce border stability and, in practice, isolate Russia diplomatically. This would make peace a European institutional commitment and establish a direct Western presence on Russia’s borders.

Accordingly, Europe plans to launch a “deterrence mechanism” known as the “trigger scenario,” which would activate a chain of military and economic measures almost automatically if Russia resorts to escalation, ensuring enforcement of the agreements.

Yet this new balance requires political stability and unshakable European resolve, along with genuine commitment to sanctions that prevent Putin from reasserting dominance by force. Without European military commitment or strict Western sanctions, Ukrainian-European gains could prove meaningless.

Tactically, Trump forced Putin into a moment of truth. By inviting him to a trilateral meeting with Zelensky, Trump put Putin in a difficult spot: refusing would cast him as obstructing peace, while accepting would mean negotiating under far tougher conditions than in Alaska.

Trump even hinted that the U.S. might participate in providing security guarantees—dealing a blow to Russia’s demand for veto power over Ukraine’s defense agreements. And Russia knows full well that Trump, unlike Putin, will leave office in three years, making these guarantees short-lived.

Rejecting the offer, however, could pin global blame on Putin for sabotaging peace, while accepting the trilateral summit could corner him diplomatically.

Most likely, Putin will resort to time-buying diplomacy, hoping to turn back the clock or fracture the fragile European unity and unravel NATO understandings.

As for Trump, he balances the concessions required to achieve a strategic deal against his image before his “Make America Great Again” base, whose trust he cannot afford to lose nor appear soft on Russia. Thus, he prefers to project himself as a political investor in the terms of peace, deliberately crafting ambiguity in his intentions and commitments to keep all parties under his control.

In this light, the world faces three possible scenarios:

1. Putin accepts negotiations leading to agreements granting Europe limited regional gains through temporary new borders, in return for implicit Russian recognition of Europe’s presence in Ukraine.

2. Putin rejects meeting Zelensky and opts for escalation, triggering harsher Western sanctions and dragging the continent back into instability reminiscent of the Cold War.

3. Trump backs away from alignment with Europe, forcing the latter to face Russia alone—undermining the credibility of both Trump and the U.S.

Thus, it can be said that Zelensky and his European allies have—so far—succeeded in regaining the initiative through tectonic shifts. Yet, despite their importance, these shifts remain fragile and far from entrenched.

So, will they last?