The recent Alaska summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has sent shockwaves through international politics, with far-reaching consequences for Ukraine, Europe, and the global order. Far from signaling a step toward peace, the meeting appears to have emboldened the Kremlin, prolonged the war in Ukraine, and left European leaders scrambling to shore up the continent's security architecture in the face of resurgent Russian aggression.
According to Foreign Affairs, the Alaska summit—which took place before September 9, 2025—was never truly about achieving peace in Ukraine. Instead, its underlying purpose was to bend the international system to Moscow’s will and maintain Putin’s monopoly on power at home. Since Russia’s first invasion of Ukraine in 2014, Putin has played a patient, calculated game, seeking to secure a military victory through attrition and to legitimize his claims over Ukraine’s territory. The summit, held in Anchorage, only strengthened his hand.
Public perception in Russia reflected this dynamic. A Levada Center survey conducted on or before September 9, 2025, found that a staggering 79% of Russians considered the summit a success for Putin, and 51% were more optimistic about improved relations with the U.S. Russian media, often quick to trumpet diplomatic victories, had little need to exaggerate. As the Foreign Affairs report put it, “After the summit, Russian media did not have to put out false pronouncements to highlight Putin’s diplomatic triumph.”
During the Anchorage meeting, Putin emphasized Russia’s “legitimate concerns,” its pursuit of a “fair security balance in Europe and the world,” and the need to “remove all root causes” of the war in Ukraine. Trump, for his part, did not challenge these assertions, effectively agreeing with Moscow’s position on Ukraine’s territorial integrity and Western security guarantees. This silence was interpreted by many as tacit approval of Russia’s ongoing aggression.
The consequences were immediate and severe. In the weeks following the summit, Russia launched one of the largest-ever attacks against Kyiv, employing nearly 600 drones and dozens of missiles. Then, on September 7, 2025, Russia escalated further, launching an even bigger assault that, for the first time, struck a major government building in the Ukrainian capital. These attacks underscored just how far the conflict remains from any kind of resolution—and how much more pressing Ukraine’s need for robust security guarantees has become.
But the path to those guarantees is fraught with difficulty. Trump has ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine and made it clear that Europe, not the United States, should bear the primary burden of any security commitments. The U.S. administration has declined to promise any specific form of involvement, leaving European leaders to cobble together a credible formula for Ukraine’s defense. In September, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that 26 Western allies were prepared to support Ukraine “by land, sea, or air” once the fighting stops. However, the details of these commitments remain vague, with only Britain, Estonia, France, and Lithuania having publicly pledged to put forces on the ground in Ukraine so far.
The challenge for Europe is daunting: how to turn determination into tangible security for Ukraine. According to Foreign Affairs, European leaders must focus on three main pillars. First is the strength of Ukraine’s own military and the extraordinary commitment of its people to sovereignty and independence. Ukraine’s armed forces, nearly a million strong and deeply experienced in war, represent the country’s best line of defense. Second, European countries must be prepared to deploy substantial ground, air, and naval forces in and around Ukraine to assist in case of renewed Russian aggression. And third, true security will only come when Ukraine is fully integrated into European institutions, including the European Union and, eventually, NATO.
Yet, Trump’s refusal to support NATO membership for Ukraine and his insistence that Europe take the lead has left European capitals in a bind. Some progress has been made: France and the United Kingdom have taken the lead on pledging troops, with some Baltic nations joining them. But others, like Poland and Germany, have been more hesitant, citing the need to focus on existing defense commitments. Still, as Foreign Affairs notes, if Ukraine’s security is truly existential for Europe, as leaders claim, then securing Ukraine must be the continent’s top priority.
On the military-industrial front, Ukraine’s own defense industry has experienced a dramatic revival. In 2024, Ukraine produced nearly $10 billion in defense equipment, a figure expected to rise to $15 billion in 2025. The country has set its sights even higher, aiming to produce $35 billion worth of defense equipment annually, though a lack of funding remains a significant obstacle. Ukraine’s factories turned out 2.5 million artillery shells in 2024—more than double the U.S. output—and expect to increase production further this year. Drone manufacturing has also surged, with two million first-person-view drones produced in 2024 and a target of five million for 2025. Ambitious plans are in place to manufacture 30,000 long-range drones, 3,000 long-range cruise missiles, and hundreds of new ballistic missiles in the next year or so.
European partners have played a vital role in these advances, providing technological know-how through joint ventures and financial support from both individual governments and the European Union. By integrating Ukraine’s burgeoning defense industry into Europe’s expanding defense base, allies are helping to lay the groundwork for Ukraine’s long-term security. As Oleksandr Kamyshin, the former minister of strategic industry who now oversees Ukraine’s defense sector, has pointed out, the country’s industrial capacity is vast but constrained by funding shortages—a gap Europe is being urged to fill.
But military production alone will not be enough. To provide credible security guarantees, Europe will need to commit significant forces to Ukraine’s defense. At a minimum, this means deploying four combat brigades—about 20,000 troops—comprising mechanized and infantry units with mobile air defenses and long-range strike capabilities. European air forces should dedicate at least ten squadrons (some 200 combat aircraft) to secure Ukraine’s skies, and a substantial naval presence should be established in the Black Sea to protect Ukraine’s coast and sea lines of communication.
While Ukraine’s military is now the largest and most battle-hardened in Europe, the deterrent effect of European deployments would send a clear message to Moscow: any renewed aggression would be met with a united and formidable response. European leaders have also stressed the importance of U.S. support, particularly in intelligence and surveillance—capabilities that are crucial for Ukraine’s defense but not easily replicated by European forces.
Ultimately, Ukraine’s security is best guaranteed by its integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions, making its defense inseparable from that of other European nations. Kyiv is on an accelerated path to EU membership, though further reforms are needed. NATO membership, while still blocked by some members’ reluctance, is seen as the ultimate goal—one that could be modeled after West Germany’s accession in 1955, applying only to territory under Ukrainian administrative control.
As Foreign Affairs concludes, Russia’s war against Ukraine is about more than subjugating a neighbor; it is an attempt to unravel the post–Cold War settlement that brought security and prosperity to Europe. The stakes could hardly be higher. The peace and security of all Europeans—and Americans—depend on a secure, sovereign, and independent Ukraine. Whether Europe can muster the will and resources to meet this historic challenge remains to be seen.