Christopher Ford says the Trump–Putin axis must not decide the fate of Ukraine
The Alaska summit has been portrayed as either an inconsequential spectacle or, in the case of Keir Starmer, a commendable achievement by Donald Trump. Both readings are dangerously mistaken. Far from progress toward a just peace, we are witnessing a major retrogression for Ukraine and for democracy globally.
In less than seven months of his second term, it was clear that, like Vladimir Putin, Trump cannot, and must not, be trusted.
Only two weeks before the summit, Washington appeared to signal a hard turn against Moscow. Trump claimed outrage at Russia’s killing of Ukrainian civilians, threatened ‘severe consequences,’ promised harsh sanctions, and simultaneously moved to end all direct aid, announcing that U.S. weapons would instead be sold to European states for transfer to Ukraine. Many rushed to declare a ‘pivot’ toward Kyiv and even spoke of a new opportunity to turn the tide of war.
The pivot was a sham. Trump’s overriding objective has remained rapprochement with Russia, with ending the current war merely a step toward that goal. In pursuit of this, Washington has actively undermined Ukraine while showing callous disregard for its people.
In March, Trump froze all U.S. military aid and cut off intelligence sharing — essential for early warnings of airstrikes. During this suspension, Russia launched an offensive in the Kursk region, reversing Ukrainian gains. UN monitors verified at least 373 civilian deaths and over 2,000 injuries in the same period. No reciprocal pressure was placed on Russia, and even the much‑touted tariffs on Russian oil targeted only India, aiming to serve U.S. trade interests rather than Ukraine.
By July, Trump set a 2nd September deadline for Russia to show ‘real progress’ toward peace, then abruptly moved it to 7–9 August. Overnight, his message shifted from threatening tariffs to dictating which Ukrainian territories should be ceded to Russia. The deadline passed with no action against Moscow. Instead, Trump sent his envoy Steve Witkoff to meet Putin in Moscow on 6th August. Putin offered no concessions, merely restating his demand for recognition of annexed territory — a meeting Trump described as ‘great progress.’
In the run-up to the Alaska summit, Trump repeatedly declared Ukraine would have to cede territory. During this whole so-called peace process, there have been near-daily attacks on Ukrainian cities: between February and June alone, Russia launched more than 21,000 drones and missiles — ten times more than in the same period last year. Large attacks often coincide with ‘peace talks.’
From Sham Peace to Betrayal
Washington is pressing Ukraine to abandon the goal of liberating occupied regions and to hand over parts of its territory that Russia has not managed to seize, all in the hope that Moscow will refrain from taking more. In doing so, the U.S. is endorsing Russia’s occupation and signalling that such aggression should be rewarded and expanded.
And what would Ukraine receive in return? A worthless ‘written guarantee’ from Putin not to return to war, and vague, non-NATO ‘security guarantees’ that would come only after occupation is accepted. The continuation of sanctions, the fate of seized Russian assets, the return of abducted children, and the prosecution of war criminals are all peripheral. The trajectory is a U.S. return to business with Russia.
Such a deal would set the stage for Russia to reinvade at its leisure. It also aligns with the Kremlin’s own position that Russia and its allies have a veto over Western military assistance to Ukraine. The Kremlin also rejects US/Europe security guarantees, underscoring its continued objective of seizing more Ukrainian territory.
The Trump–Putin Axis of Reaction
The Alaska and Washington meetings marked a realignment: rehabilitating Putin, dismantling pressure on his regime, and demanding Ukraine pay the price for a counterfeit peace. Hosting Putin, who is wanted for mass child abduction, replayed the appeasement politics of the 1930s, emboldening authoritarians.
Instead of confronting the threat, European leaders have reinforced it. By praising Trump as a credible peacemaker without demanding real concessions from Putin, Starmer helps promote Trump’s manufactured image as a peacemaker and legitimises his actual undermining of Ukraine.
Europe and Labour’s Choice
The deal envisaged by Trump could be the pivot that defines the new Europe. Will it be a continent of validated conquest, covered-up war crimes, abducted children, and normalised relations with aggressors? A Europe dependent on a U.S. that has proved itself unreliable and complicit?
Or will Europe act to take responsibility for its own future, breaking from a process that is appeasement dressed as diplomacy? For Ukraine, freedom of choice must be restored, and the capacity to end the Russian occupation provided.
The European labour movement must intervene with an independent agenda: one that sees a just peace for Ukraine as integral to the struggle against rising fascism and authoritarianism. The statement Another Ukraine Is Possible: Free from Occupation, endorsed by UK and Ukrainian trade unionists and democratic socialists, sets out the viable alternative we need: for a free and united Ukraine, liberated from occupation.