The announcement of the imminent meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin has sparked diverse and contradictory reactions internationally. Many of these reactions require attention due to the vagueness and inconsistency of the opinions expressed, in line with a demonstrated lack of clear criteria and defined positions that have increasingly characterized the political approaches of the so-called Western world.

I’m going to allow myself a brief and basic analysis that will allow us to place the announced meeting within parameters that are at least more realistic than those recently reported in our area, because I believe there is an attempt to create a media environment that could distort—in advance—the possible agreements reached at the summit, if they are reached, or their failure.

Let’s review the essential points of reference of the meeting, such as the stated objective, the time at which it takes place, the place of the meeting, who intervenes, who is left out, as well as the circumstances that directly influence this event.

There is no doubt that the essential proposal is to achieve peace in the war that has erupted between Russia and Ukraine, which has stemmed from a deep confrontation between the two countries since 2014, a consequence of the United States’ intervention in Ukraine’s internal affairs, disrupting the equilibrium achieved in this context after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Russia’s war initiative failed to achieve the immediate annexation of the claimed territories, as expected, due to a series of factors—which shed light on what happened—that would be cumbersome to explain here. The war dragged on, and while its negative consequences have been significant for Putin, they have been devastating for Ukraine, to the point that its future viability raises serious questions.

The stance of NATO and the European Union, sustaining a war effort unprecedented since World War II and fueling a conflict with a surprising degree of warmongering after years of radical pacifism, has revealed the lack of European “sovereignty” and the hegemony of a growing globalist power that brooks no dissent.

The situation has changed somewhat with the change of President in the United States, as his campaign promises included, among other important changes, a “different” vision of the conflict at hand. The agreement reached for the US exploitation of Ukraine’s “rare earths” has placed Zelensky even more dependent, if possible, on international capitalism, which, from the beginning, had used him as an anti-Russian battering ram.

It is therefore perfectly fitting that the presidential meeting is taking place in Alaska, a location far from the conflict zone and Europe, and on American territory bordering Russia.

But even more significant is the absence, bordering on contempt, not only of representatives of Ukraine, but also of the European Union. The recent declaration by some of the Old Continent’s key leaders, a few days after their submission on the issue of tariffs, is not only ridiculous, but also a public acknowledgment that they have been the clumsy and manipulable instrument of the one who truly rules. In short, they have sacrificed the interests of their nations and all their citizens and have contributed to the total destruction of a nation they—hypocritically—claimed, and continue to claim, to support.

Let us hope for a positive outcome from the Alaska meeting that will return the intentionally diverted waters to their proper course and, in doing so, renew European leadership in a way that is in line with our essence and origins.