DonateDeal Baby, Deal – Trumps Deals detrimental to Europe’s interests
The 2025 summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, marked a symbolic meeting, very different to other major conflicts in the past. Normally, initial peace overtures take place, followed by cabinet meetings, formal negotiations, delegations meeting and in the end accepted agreements. Not so with the deal-maker Donald Trump – which is allegedly called “Krasnov” by Russian intelligence. But this is a conspiracy theory. But let’s conspiracy a little bit more and show, which side-deals Trump could have been made while the Ukraine and Europe are totally irrelevant for him.
While the official outcome reported was that no formal agreements were signed, the summit sparked intense speculation about a range of prospective understandings that could reshape not only bilateral relations but broader global power balances.
Land-for-Peace Framework in Ukraine
Perhaps the most discussed and politically sensitive prospect is a “land-for-peace” deal. President Trump has publicly suggested that Ukraine might need to cede some territories—particularly those held by Russia in the Donbas region and parts of southern Ukraine—as a prerequisite to achieving a ceasefire or peace treaty. This approach aligns closely with long-standing Russian demands and represents a major shift from previous U.S. positions supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity. While no signed deal exists, behind-the-scenes talks might have centered around identifying which Ukrainian territories could be part of such an exchange and what guarantees or compensation Ukraine could receive in return.
Technology and Economic Cooperation
The summit reportedly involved high-level economic and technological officials from both sides. Shared interests likely include:
- Arctic Resource Development: Joint ventures in oil, natural gas (LNG), and rare earth mineral extraction in the Arctic region and Alaska, leveraging Russia’s expertise and resources with U.S. infrastructure and technology.
- Energy Supply Chains and Rare Earth Minerals: Cooperation in securing supply chains for critical minerals essential to high-tech industries, including semiconductors and clean energy technologies. This could be a strategic counter to global supply monopolies.
- Technology Transfer and Investment: Discussions on easing restrictions to allow Russian investments in U.S. natural resource and infrastructure projects, simultaneously exploring U.S. technology access for Russian energy sector modernization.
Despite the potential economic benefits, political tensions and sanctions related to the Ukraine war have likely hindered formalizing any agreements.
Nuclear Arms Control and Security Guarantees
Early in the lead-up to the summit, Putin indicated the possibility of negotiating on nuclear arms control, including the renewal of the New START treaty, which expires in early 2026. The summit might have laid the groundwork for future negotiations on strategic arms reduction and mutual security assurances, which could ease tensions but would require intricate diplomatic follow-up.
Arctic Shipping and Military Escalation Controls
Both countries have vested interests in controlling emerging Arctic shipping lanes and expanding military infrastructure. Potential talks could have raised ideas for the joint management or regulatory frameworks for new shipping routes opening due to Arctic ice melt. The U.S. and Russia will likely install confidence-building measures to reduce the risk of military incidents in the Arctic, including transparency agreements or communication hotlines between military commanders.
Geopolitical “Division of Influence” Concepts
Although speculative and unconfirmed, some theories circulate about a tacit understanding, sometimes dubbed the “Venezuela Theory,” where the U.S. might focus on hemispheric influence issues while permitting Russia freer rein in Eastern Europe, particularly Ukraine. Additionally, China could have freer interpretation regarding its interest in the Taiwan strait – ending up in a unhindered occupation of the island. This speculation feeds concerns in Europe and NATO about sidelining Ukraine and broader regional security.
Change of global peace order to the detriment of Europe
While no official “deal” emerged from the Alaska summit, speculation and insider hints suggest that several potential agreements, including a territorial peace framework in Ukraine, economic and technological cooperation in Arctic resources, and nuclear arms control, were floated. However, the prevailing issues—deep distrust, ongoing war, and international sanctions—make formalizing such agreements challenging in the near term.
For Europe this all does not look good. Trump is a deal-maker who uninhibited acts in his own selfish interests. And all the speculated discussions above do indeed lead into a more peaceful world as major conflict lines would have been solved. Many of the deals are not in the interest of Europe – as this region is holding high the promotion of democratic values and human rights. But Europe does neither have the power to impose any leadership by force, nor has it the independency to remain steadfast when global understanding of trade routes, access to raw materials and in the end a new kind of partnering on par between Russia, China and the U.S. emerges.
