The White House is more important than the US-Russia summit in Alaska

It is possible that the meeting on Monday at the White House may be even more important for the future of Ukraine – and for the whole security of Europe – than in the last Friday summit of the US Russian in Alaska.

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

There was no ceasefire, no sanctions, no grand ad.

Were Ukraine and Europe, who are going to make a deal behind the closed door with two main nuclear states in the world?

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

The presence of Sir Keira Starmer, President Macron, Chancellor Merz and other leaders together with President Zelensky in Washington is more than making sure he did not go into the oval office again, as he did on February 28.

They are determined to impress Donald Trump two things: the first thing that without the direct participation of Ukraine cannot be peace. It should be backed up.

First of all, Europe’s leaders want the US president to see that Ukraine and Europe are represented by the united front, and they seek to make sure that it has not fallen from his obvious personal connection with Vladimir Putin to abandon the requirements of Russian leaders.

It is here that the diplomatic skills of Sir Keira Starmer will be checked.

Trump loves Starmer and listens to him, and a month later Trump comes to the UK to a state visit.

He also likes Mark Ruthte, NATO Secretary General, who will be present, a person sometimes called “Trump’s whisper”.

The US president appears to be less fond of President Macron, and the White House has recently been sharply critical in his intention to certainly recognize the Palestinian state at the next UN General Assembly.

For a peaceful deal in Ukraine, there is a chance to work, something must give.

European leaders often said that international boundaries could not be changed by force, and President Zelensky said again and again that he would not abandon the land, and in addition, the Constitution of Ukraine forbid it.

But Putin wants Donbass, which his forces already control about 85 percent, and he absolutely does not intend to convey Crimea.

However, as the former Prime Minister of Estonia, and now the main diplomat of Europe Kaj Kalas once told me: Victory in Ukraine in this war should not be solely about the restoration of the occupied land.

If Ukraine can receive such type 5 security guarantees that are now talked about, it is enough to restrain any future Russian aggression and thereby ensure its independence as a free and sovereign state, it will be a form of victory.

Now it seems that the US and Russia are discussing is a proposal that generally sells some Ukrainian land for safety guarantees that it will no longer have to give up Russia.

But the signs of the questions are huge.

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

If it is asked Give up the remaining 30 percent of the Dispaning area What does Russia not yet take, or leaves this path to the West for Kiev to be dangerously underestimated?

And what is the very grieving coalition of Starmer?

Earlier, talk about deploying tens of thousands of boots on Earth has since scaled back.

Now it is about “preserving heaven and seas”, helping Ukraine to restore its army.

But even when the world breaks out on the battlefield, we are still in a dangerous area.

Every military expert with whom I said, believes that at the moment when the fighting stops Putin restore his army, building more weapons until he is in a position, perhaps only three -four years to capture more land.

If and when it happens, it will be a brave typhoon or F35 pilot, which is ready to shoot the first rocket on a progressed Russian column.