Recently, all eyes were on the US State of Alaska, which was part of Russia before 1867.
On August 15, an important meeting took place between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. This was the first meeting between the leaders of the two countries in four years and Ukraine was the primary topic of discussion for approximately three hours. The success of the dialogue between the US and Russian Presidents concerning the Ukraine war will determine the direction of global politics. A war has been going on between Russia and Ukraine for three and a half years; however, the scope of this conflict is no longer limited to the battlefield but is profoundly impacting global politics, defense alliances and the balance of power.
During his re-election campaign, President Trump stated that if he were to become President again, he would end the Russia-Ukraine war within 24 hours. He also claimed that had he been president in 2022 instead of Joe Biden, this war would not have occurred at all. Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, Ukraine extended a hand of friendship towards the West, with its most prominent goal being membership in NATO. After the Russian invasion in February 2022, Ukraine formally applied for NATO membership, but so far NATO has not granted it. A significant reason for this delay lies within NATO’s own constitutional framework. Article Five of NATO states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on the entire alliance. If Ukraine were to be granted membership, NATO would have to engage in direct conflict with Russia, a decision that the West does not seem prepared to make.
NATO is providing military support to Ukraine, with the US, the UK and several European countries supplying modern weapons, training and financial assistance; however, the door to membership remains closed. This situation is deeply disappointing for Ukraine. In the light of the recent geopolitical and political landscape, the relationship between Ukraine and NATO is at a critical juncture. The Russia-Ukraine war has not only jeopardized European security but has also raised questions about NATO’s strategy and future. However, one thing is certain: the relationship between Ukraine and NATO is not merely a matter of two states or a military alliance, but the beginning of a new alignment of global powers.
It is said that President Putin has softened some of his demands made last June. At that time, he was demanding complete control over the Donbas (Donetsk and Luhansk) as well as southern Ukraine’s Kherson and Zaporizhia; however, in the newly proposed plan, Russia is now only insisting on the evacuation of the Donbas, while halting at the current front lines in Zaporizhia and Kherson. In return, Russia is ready to withdraw from smaller areas of Kharkiv, Sumy and Dnipro. President Zelensky has declared these terms unacceptable, warning that conceding the Donbas would endanger Ukraine’s survival, while NATO membership remains a constitutional goal. Russia already controls three-quarters of Zaporizhia and Kherson, in addition to Kharkiv, Mykolaiv and Dnipro. The Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska has shifted the war’s narrative, with Trump making clear the US will not send troops or grant NATO membership, signaling Russia’s victory and Western decline.
An initial stage has been reached regarding the direct meeting between the presidents of Russia and Ukraine. In the next phase, the US President will also participate in this meeting to finalize a ceasefire agenda. On the other hand, European leaders have expressed doubts about whether the Russian President truly intends to end the war. In this regard, European leaders have openly shared their concerns. Germany and France argue that under these terms, Russia will become more powerful while Ukraine will be weakened. Poland and the Baltic states warn that if Ukraine is abandoned today, they too will be in Russia’s crosshairs tomorrow and NATO’s standing will significantly weaken, affecting its functionality as well.
The future of Ukraine and NATO depends on several factors. What conditions will end the war? Which direction will Russia’s internal political situation take? How long will the European Union and the US continue to support Ukraine? Will the center of power remain in the West, or new powers emerge? If NATO includes Ukraine, it must be prepared for Russia’s response. However, the question also arises whether NATO genuinely wants to include Ukraine in its ranks or just intends to exert pressure on Russia by giving the impression of support. Trump has also made it clear that in the event of a ceasefire, Crimea and the eastern Donbas areas will not be returned to Ukraine, which are under Russian control. This implies that the front line will, in the future, be considered the border. This represents Ukraine, Europe and NATO’s unconditional ceasefire before Russia, facilitated by the US President.
For Ukraine, abandoning the Donbas is neither politically feasible nor strategically sound. Therefore, the real test is whether the parties can reach any practical agreement at the working level. Russia maintains its superiority on the battlefield, holding its ground in both war and negotiations. Overall, this situation is not merely a matter of a ceasefire but rather a step toward a new global balance. This war has not merely remained a conflict between two countries in the international arena. This has taken the form of an indirect clash between a major power (Russia) and a global alliance (NATO). If Trump’s formula is accepted, it will result in Russia’s historic victory and a defeat for NATO.