Alaska’s Summit – A Step Towards Engineering International Power

By Hani El Gamal – Head of European Studies at Al-Arabs Center
Translated by: Heba Mohamed Masoud

With the “three-for-three” format, the world’s attention has turned to one of the most significant international political and diplomatic competitions in decades.

Europe fears the international isolation of the United States regarding the situation in Ukraine, as there is no innocent peace on the table, but rather visible compromises and hidden bargains. It appears as if the world is about to witness an agreement signed in front of cameras and sealed with ink in one place—and blood in another. The high-stake summit between Trump and Putin may determine not only the trajectory of the war in Ukraine but also the future of European security. It also provides the American president an opportunity to present himself globally as a skillful dealmaker.

European leaders are not participating as mere observers but rather as a political shield to protect Kyiv from a potential bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Russia—one that might exclude them and redraw the future of the war and the balance of power across Europe.

American–Russian Power Lines and a New Political Geography

As the world anticipates rapid results from the Alaska summit, the most notable outcome is a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, following an earlier U.S.–European meeting that aimed to limit Trump’s impulsiveness in reaching a deal that could reshape the future of the European continent—one reminiscent of the Yalta Agreement, which redrew Europe’s political map.

Trump, however, has a different vision: a shift in focus to the Indo-Pacific region to confront both Russia and China in the South Caucasus and to delineate zones of American and Russian influence across multiple strategic locations. Months earlier, Kremlin officials spoke of potential cooperation with the U.S. in economic, technological, and space sectors, as well as lucrative deals in infrastructure and energy, including the Arctic. This includes securing U.S. approval for Russia to annex 20% of Ukrainian territory—particularly Eastern Donbas—and for a Russian military repositioning in Libya instead of Syria.

On the other hand, the U.S. would be allowed access to the Zangezur Corridor in the South Caucasus through a 99-year lease to an American company, which would be named “Trump’s Corridor.” This would enable the U.S. to collaborate with Armenia and Azerbaijan in various fields such as energy, trade, and artificial intelligence, giving Washington the leverage to pressure China and Iran.

Although ideological factors drive U.S.–Russian rivalry in the Middle East, the stakes are much higher in the Ukrainian conflict. These deep-rooted motives make genuine coordination between the two powers unlikely—even if they do reach a bargain in Europe. The competition over dominance in the Middle East and Russia’s repositioning efforts, along with opposition to U.S. policy in various regions, will persist.

Is the U.S. a Strategic Ally That Can Be Trusted?

The policies of the Trump administration raise critical questions about the credibility of American alliances. For decades, the U.S. was seen as a stable and dependable power—especially during crises—on which allies could rely. This was evident in its role in NATO, bilateral security agreements in Asia, and strategic partnerships in the Middle East and elsewhere.

However, Trump’s return to the White House has altered this image, creating skepticism about the extent of U.S. commitment to defending countries that fail to meet expected defense spending levels. The Pentagon has also been considering proposals to reduce the American military presence in Europe, in order to focus on the Indo-Pacific region and counter the growing challenges imposed by China.

There is also a deep divide in perceptions of America’s global role under Trump. While some question the reliability of U.S. commitments to allies, others see this as an opportunity to restructure the international security system in a more efficient and equitable manner over the long term.

In my view, Putin has succeeded in shifting the axis of confrontation from one between America and Russia to one between America and Europe. As a result, the guarantees offered by the United States have become the last hope for Zelensky and his European partners—especially after Putin agreed to allow the inclusion of a collective defense clause for Ukraine in a future peace agreement. This clause, akin to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, stipulates that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. It serves as a middle ground to counter Russia’s firm rejection of Ukraine’s accession to NATO.

Moreover, the U.S. interest in de-escalating the conflict is driven by its aim to implement agreements related to precious metals with Ukraine. Therefore, American guarantees have become a crucial element in any imminent agreement between the parties involved.

Can Europe Build an Independent Defense Umbrella Away from Washington?

Amid America’s shifting stance on the Russia–Ukraine crisis and Trump’s pressure on EU countries to increase their defense spending from 2.5% to 5% of GDP—alongside growing concerns over a potential U.S. presidency under his vice president—the European Commission introduced a new concept of national security in April 2025 under a strategy titled “Protecting the European Union.”

This strategy aims to enhance the EU’s defense capabilities, bridge existing gaps, support the European defense industry, deepen the integrated defense market, and boost Europe’s preparedness for worst-case scenarios. It also seeks to address escalating security threats and hybrid challenges such as terrorism, organized crime, cybercrime, and attacks on critical infrastructure. Moreover, it emphasizes unifying European defense efforts through joint procurement and collective armament. As a result, leaders of the European military industry have allocated €150 billion for defense and non-military security for the upcoming budget cycle, spanning seven years starting in 2028.

In reality, the U.S. is no longer as affected by the war in Ukraine as it once was. Any future American military support for Ukraine will likely be financed by Europe. Moreover, the U.S. may prefer the conflict to continue, as it ensures Europe remains dependent on American support—thereby reinforcing its alignment with Washington, despite America’s unfair trade and tariff practices toward its allies.

The continuation of the war guarantees Russia’s ongoing distraction and exhaustion, preventing it from effectively countering other American actions in the Caucasus, the Middle East, and possibly even the Arctic. It also limits Russia’s capacity to offer substantial support to China in any potential military confrontation in East Asia.

The U.S.–EU summit, with the participation of Zelensky, may represent a turning point in shaping a new political map for Europe. It could open the door to geopolitical shifts that affect the entire world—albeit to varying degrees. The outcome could have far-reaching repercussions proportional to the scale of global transformations we are currently witnessing. It is pushing Europe to accelerate its move toward strategic independence from America and to confront an uncertain future with new allies—or perhaps the emergence of right-wing powers and the formation of new political dynamics both internally and externally.