Ukraines European backers in panic after Alaska summit Putin envoy
theuknews.com -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 11:27:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–Russia Relations, Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–NATO Relations

The leaders of France, Germany, and Britain plan to back Zelensky in talks with Trump, according to reports
Ukraine's backers in the EU and UK are "in a panic" after the Alaska summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, according to Russian economic envoy Kirill Dmitriev.
Putin and Trump met in Anchorage on Friday in their first face-to-face encounter since 2018, with ways to resolve the Ukraine conflict topping the agenda. The Russian president described the talks as "frank" and "substantive," while Trump said they were "warm."
Dmitriev, who is CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) and was among his country's delegation in Alaska, wrote on Telegram on Sunday that "European and British supporters of the conflict are in panic" because of the diplomatic efforts by Moscow and Washington.
He added links to a report by Politico, which stated that Western European leaders are "anxious" ahead of Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky's planned meeting with Trump in Washington on Monday.
According to the outlet's sources, they plan to send Finnish President Alexander Stubb to Washington in hopes that he "can help prevent any flare-ups between Trump and Zelensky and convince the US president to include Europe in any further talks."
Dmitriev also referenced an article by Bild claiming that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer are considering traveling to Washington to support Zelensky.
Zelensky's previous trip to the White House in February culminated in a shouting match in front of the cameras with Trump and US Vice President J.D. Vance, who accused the Ukrainian leader of being ungrateful for American aid and being uninterested in peace.
Trump told Fox News on Friday that Zelensky should "make the deal" to resolve the conflict with Russia, stressing that Putin "wants to see it done" and urging Western Europe to "get involved a little bit."
According to Axios, Trump told Kiev's European backers that he wants to arrange a trilateral summit with Putin and Zelensky "as soon as next Friday."
READ MORE: Trump wants summit with Putin and Zelensky next Friday media
Putin reiterated on Saturday that any settlement of the Ukraine conflict should eliminate its root causes. Moscow insists that for lasting peace to be achieved, Ukraine should renounce its NATO ambitions, demilitarize, and recognize the current territorial realities.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and former U.S. President Donald Trump in Anchorage has reignited the longstanding tensions surrounding the Ukraine conflict. The dialogue defined by both leaders as “frank” and “substantive” raises significant questions about the future of international diplomacy in Eastern Europe and the implications for Ukraine's sovereignty. As European leaders express increasing concern and anxiety about these developments, the dynamics of power in this geopolitical struggle become apparent, revealing an underlying narrative that is often overlooked in mainstream discourse. This situation not only highlights the precariousness of Ukraine's position but also exposes the persistent effects of colonialism, the Cold War, and the ideological battles that continue to shape global politics.
The historical context of Ukraine’s plight cannot be divorced from an examination of its geopolitical significance. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine's independence was celebrated as a victory for self-determination. However, the legacy of Soviet influence, coupled with the West's increasing encroachment through NATO expansion, has sown discord. Historically, Ukraine has served as a buffer state, caught between larger powers vying for control. The 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia and ongoing conflict in the Donbas region are stark reminders of how colonial legacies and great power ambitions can disrupt the aspirations of smaller nations. As such, the current diplomatic maneuvers by Putin and Trump could be seen as a continuation of this pattern, where the fate of Ukraine is debated by powers that have often disregarded its agency.
As European leaders scramble to bolster support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the face of Trump's overtures to Putin, it becomes evident that the European Union (EU) and NATO's responses have been reactive rather than proactive. The anxiety expressed by leaders such as German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron underscores a broader concern about a potential pivot in U.S. foreign policy that could undermine decades of collective security arrangements in Europe. The notion that Trump, with his unpredictable foreign policy approach, could shift the balance of support away from Ukraine raises critical questions about the reliability of Western alliances and the implications for global norms surrounding national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Trump’s calls for Zelensky to “make the deal” with Putin reflect a troubling transactional view of diplomacy that undermines the complex realities on the ground. Such rhetoric dismisses the legitimate aspirations of the Ukrainian people for autonomy and self-determination. Instead of framing the conflict as a struggle against imperialist aggression, it risks reducing it to a mere negotiation of power dynamics. This perspective aligns with a historical pattern where larger nations dictate terms to smaller ones, often overlooking the social and humanitarian implications of such negotiations. The assertion that a peace deal must include the renunciation of NATO ambitions, demilitarization, and recognition of territorial realities all serve to legitimize Russian territorial claims while sidelining Ukraine's right to self-defense and international support.
Furthermore, the current situation reflects ongoing social struggles that extend beyond the borders of Ukraine. The anxiety felt by European leaders is not merely about territorial integrity; it reveals a deeper apprehension about the resurgence of authoritarianism and the potential erosion of democratic norms in the region. The rise of populist leaders who prioritize nationalist agendas over collective security and democratic values poses fundamental threats not just to Ukraine, but to the entire European project. The implications of these dynamics are profound, as they challenge the very foundations of international cooperation established post-World War II. This moment calls for a renewed commitment to multilateralism, recognizing that true security and peace can only be achieved through inclusive dialogue that respects the voices and rights of all affected populations.
In conclusion, the Anchorage summit serves as a critical juncture in the ongoing Ukraine conflict, highlighting the interplay of historical legacies, geopolitical ambitions, and social struggles. The response of European leaders reflects not only their concern for Ukraine's future but also their recognition of the potential shifts in global power dynamics that could arise from such high-stakes negotiations. As the world watches, it is essential to advocate for a political approach that prioritizes the principles of sovereignty, self-determination, and democratic accountability, ensuring that the voices of those most affected by these conflicts are not lost in the corridors of power. This moment is an opportunity for deeper reflection on the responsibilities of global leaders to prioritize diplomacy that upholds justice and equity, rather than succumbing to the whims of power politics.
The recent Alaska summit between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump has stirred profound concerns among Ukraine's European allies, revealing the intricate web of geopolitical interests that define the current landscape. In the wake of the summit, European leaders find themselves in a precarious situation, as the dynamics of the Ukraine conflict take a new turn. The implications of these discussions underscore a broader historical and political narrative that merits examination. It is crucial to recognize that the events unfolding in Ukraine are not merely a localized crisis but are emblematic of larger global power struggles.
Historically, Ukraine has been a focal point of contention between Russia and Western powers, particularly since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The West's push for NATO expansion and the European Union's eastward expansion have been perceived by Russia as direct threats to its sphere of influence. This context is vital for understanding why the Alaska summit has elicited anxiety among Ukraine's European supporters. The potential for a U.S.-Russia rapprochement, even if it is framed as a desire for peace, raises alarm bells among nations that fear their own security interests might be sacrificed at the altar of geopolitical expediency. The anxieties expressed by European leaders indicate a deep-seated fear that the U.S. might pursue a unilateral approach to resolving the conflict without meaningful consideration for the perspectives and concerns of its European allies.
As Americans, it is essential to engage in a dialogue about the implications of these international developments and what they mean for our own foreign policy. Advocacy for a multilateral approach to the Ukraine conflict is vital. Rather than allowing the conversation to be dominated by the whims of individual leaders, we must push for a framework that includes all relevant stakeholders, particularly those in Europe who are directly affected by the outcomes of such negotiations. Engaging in grassroots activism, community discussions, and contacting our elected representatives to express support for diplomatic solutions grounded in international law can help steer the narrative toward collaborative efforts rather than unilateral decision-making.
Moreover, it is important to educate ourselves and others about the historical and political context surrounding the Ukraine conflict. Understanding the complex dynamics of NATO, historical grievances, and Russia's perspective can enable more nuanced conversations with those who may hold differing views. We must confront the narrative that frames Russia solely as an aggressor without recognizing the broader context of Western involvement and the potential pitfalls of ignoring the legitimate security concerns that have fueled the current situation. By fostering a more comprehensive understanding, we can challenge oversimplified narratives that often dominate mainstream discourse.
Finally, we must recognize that the situation in Ukraine is not merely a foreign policy issue but has profound implications for global democracy and human rights. As we grapple with the possibility of a renewed U.S.-Russia entente, we must advocate for solutions that prioritize the sovereignty and self-determination of nations rather than succumbing to great power politics. This includes promoting humanitarian efforts and supporting grassroots movements within Ukraine that strive for democratic governance and social justice. By doing so, we can contribute to a more equitable and just resolution to the conflict while reinforcing our commitment to democratic principles on a global scale.
In conclusion, the developments following the Alaska summit call for a critical examination of our foreign policy approach and a commitment to multilateral diplomacy. As engaged citizens, we must seize this moment to advocate for a thoughtful, informed, and humane response to the challenges facing Ukraine and the broader international community. By doing so, we can help to shape a future that prioritizes cooperation over conflict and resilience over division.
The recent developments surrounding the Alaska summit and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine highlight the urgent need for citizens to engage in proactive measures to influence foreign policy and global peace efforts. Here’s a detailed list of actions we can take to show our support for Ukraine and advocate for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict.
### Personal Actions We Can Take
1. **Educate Yourself and Others**: - Stay informed about the conflict in Ukraine, its historical context, and the implications of international diplomacy. Share this knowledge through social media or community forums to raise awareness.
2. **Engage in Conversations**: - Discuss the importance of continued support for Ukraine in your community. Organize or attend local meetings or discussions to share perspectives on how peace can be achieved.
3. **Support Ukrainian Organizations**: - Contribute to or volunteer with organizations that provide aid to Ukraine, such as the Ukrainian Red Cross or local Ukrainian cultural organizations. This support can amplify efforts on the ground.
### Specific Actions to Take
1. **Sign Petitions**: - **Petition for Continued Support of Ukraine**: Websites like Change.org often have petitions addressing support for Ukraine. Search for petitions related to military and humanitarian aid for Ukraine and sign them. You can also start your own petition to rally community support.
2. **Contact Elected Officials**: - Write to your representatives urging them to support Ukraine in diplomatic discussions. Here’s a template you can use, along with contact information for key officials:
**Sample Template for Letter or Email**: ``` Subject: Support for Ukraine and Peaceful Resolution
Dear [Official's Name],
I am writing to express my concern regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the recent developments following the Alaska summit. It is crucial that the United States continues to support Ukraine while advocating for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict with Russia.
I urge you to prioritize diplomatic efforts and encourage a multinational approach to peace talks that includes Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Please work towards ensuring that any agreement respects the wishes of the Ukrainian people and maintains their right to self-determination.
Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter.
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email] ```
**Key Officials to Contact**: - **President Joe Biden** - Email: via White House contact form at [whitehouse.gov/contact](https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/) - Mailing Address: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500
- **Secretary of State Antony Blinken** - Email: via State Department contact form at [state.gov/contact](https://www.state.gov/contact-us/) - Mailing Address: U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520
- **Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Bob Menendez** - Email: via Senate contact form at [menendez.senate.gov/contact](https://www.menendez.senate.gov/contact) - Mailing Address: 528 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510
3. **Join Advocacy Groups**: - Become active in organizations that advocate for foreign policy that supports Ukraine, such as the National Ukrainian American Coordinating Council (NUACC) or the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA). Participating in their campaigns can amplify your voice.
4. **Participate in Demonstrations**: - Look for local demonstrations or rallies supporting Ukraine. These events often generate media coverage and can influence public opinion and policymakers.
5. **Utilize Social Media**: - Share information and updates about the situation in Ukraine on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. Use hashtags like #StandWithUkraine to connect with broader movements and raise awareness.
6. **Engage with Media**: - Write letters to the editor of local newspapers expressing your views on the importance of supporting Ukraine and advocating for peace.
By taking these actionable steps, we can collectively influence the narrative surrounding Ukraine and ensure that peace and diplomacy remain at the forefront of international discussions.