Alaska Summit: President Trump Is Setting Himself Up for Failure! No Peace Without Ending Zelensky’s Destructive Role and Changing the EU’s Flawed Stance

For years, I have argued in multiple blog entries—against the prevailing orthodoxy—that the true culprits behind the armed conflict in Ukraine were not to be found in Moscow, but in Washington, Brussels, and Kyiv. Western policy in Ukraine was a reckless, immoral gamble—driven not by the defense of democracy, but by a blind Russophobia and geopolitical vanity of Washington, Brussels, and their willing proxy in Kyiv. In those same essays, I also explained why the Russian Special Military Operation—routinely dismissed by the uninformed and ideologically blinded as a “war of aggression” (confusing militarily offensive with politically defensive)—was justifiable on moral grounds.

This point matters, because in our legal-positivist era, morality is often forgotten. Yet moral law—the ethical righteousness of human acts—precedes legal provisions. In the end and ultimately: Morality beats legality. Specifically in international relations! But for those unwilling to accept anything beyond legal norms, Russia’s campaign could also be justified under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which allows for collective self-defense—a principle applicable in light of the injustices committed by Kyiv against the eastern oblasts and their Russian populations since the Western-backed color revolution of 2014.

Ukraine leadership, backed by signatory states like Germany and France, failed to implement the Minsk I and II agreements. As a result, Russia acted to end the intolerable conditions suffered by large portions of the population and to rectify the wrongs inflicted since post-Maidan Ukraine first came under an American proxy president, Petro Poroshenko. This policy of repression was then intensified under Zelensky, whose bid to join NATO—and thereby place the alliance’s military reach directly on Russia’s border—combined with a massive rearmament program, left no doubt that Ukraine was ready to serve as a U.S. proxy for weakening Russia, even to the point of seeking regime change in Moscow.

As I wrote in my blog essay of December 18, 2022 (to be found in totality here):

“Preemptive war can be justified when all peaceful means and all alternatives to using force have been exhausted and only immediate military action can prevent higher threats from materializing.”

I do not repeat my arguments—very much in contrast to American and European warmongers—out of pride, pigheadedness, or the inability to revise my views when confronted with historical reality. The latter has meanwhile corroborated the appropriateness of my arguments. Unfortunately, intellectual flexibility is entirely absent among the decision-makers in the European Commission, NATO, and the Ukrainian government. They stubbornly cling to the very policies and flawed judgments that ignited the war in the first place.

Now, as President Trump prepares to meet President Putin in Alaska this Friday for historic peace talks—talks already boycotted by both Zelensky and the EU—another of my earlier warnings stands vindicated. In my March 5, 2024, post, I wrote (find the whole essay here):

“To end the war, the Zelensky regime—described by some as fascist—must be ousted. Ukraine should be divided, with the conquered territories temporarily under Russian control, and a new government should be established in Kyiv. This government must be able to cooperate with both East and West and should commit to refraining from joining NATO or engaging in any form of military cooperation with the U.S. and its allies.”

If peace is to be achieved, Zelensky must go. His continued presence in power guarantees only the prolongation of conflict, needless bloodshed, and further devastation for Ukraine. U.S. and EU support should have ended long ago; instead, the relentless flow of arms and funds has merely deepened the tragedy.

It is incomprehensible that President Trump failed to act decisively when Zelensky stirred discord in the Oval Office on February 28, 2025. He was allowed to leave Washington unscathed, returning to Kyiv to continue his ruinous course. The US is not a member to the International Criminal Court, but I am sure the legal experts in the US State Department could have found a paragraph justifying detaining the usurper and war criminal Zelensky. That was a missed opportunity to remove a central obstacle to peace.

With the Alaska talks imminent, the question now is how Trump and Putin can overcome the obstructionism of Zelensky and his European backers and achieve a settlement that is both just and durable. Such an agreement must, as I have long maintained, include territorial recognition for Russia in the east and south—regions subjected to repression, discrimination, political marginalization, and military assault since 2014. Any peace plan that ignores this reality—as European leaders seem to be committed to do—is doomed to fail.

Let us once again state the obvious: First Obama and then Biden and the American national security elites—not Putin—bear primary responsibility for this confrontation between Russia and the West. Unless the U.S. neoconservatives, the European Commission, and NATO’s senior leadership awaken from their Russophobe slumber and abandon their imperial dreams of global dominance, any armistice will be temporary, and future conflict inevitable.

The decisive challenge is to reintroduce philosophical depth into the thinking of those advising both President Trump and Europe’s leaders. Trump’s instincts are, as so often, correct—anchored in conservative-Christian principles and oriented toward fair, mutually beneficial outcomes. Yet his inner circle remains mired in Cold War thinking, granting humanity and legitimate interests to allies while denying them to perceived adversaries.

Here, Mr. Putin could serve as an example: a statesman of intellect and moral clarity whose consistent positions—from his February 10, 2007, Munich Security Conference speech to countless press conferences with world journalists since—have been deliberately distorted by Western politicians and media, who project onto him the cynicism that truly resides in their own policies.

The hope now is that Presidents Trump and Putin can reach an agreement that serves Ukraine, Europe, and the wider world. The support of Zelensky and his morally bankrupt backers in Brussels will not be needed—and indeed, would only imperil any chance of lasting peace. How these forces can be neutralized so they do not sabotage a potential settlement may require nothing less than a statesmanlike miracle at the Alaska Summit.

Chaos Unfolding: The Israel-Iran Escalation and the Crisis of Western National Security

For years, if not decades, we’ve heard that Iran is on the brink of building a nuclear bomb. This rationale has been used again and again to justify interventions, sanctions, and threats. It has now served as the moral pretext for Israel’s preemptive strike against Iranian infrastructure and personnel. Not only did those operations target nuclear enrichment sites but have also been extended to pinpointed strikes and assassinations against individuals, nuclear scientists and military brass, including their families—all flagrant violations of the principles of international law, yet, more importantly, of the fundamental stakes of an Ethics of International Relations.

The classical boundaries of just war—proportionality and distinction—have been discarded. The guiding principle is no longer rooted in legality or morality but in Machiavellian expediency. Imaginary political goals are pursued by any and all means. The immoral logic of “the end justifies all means” is applied without any limits and humanitarian concerns—a shameful conduct, which is not merely tragic, but rather a symptom of a deeper civilizational disorder.

Yet, the Israel-Iran confrontation is but one facet of a much broader global descent into chaotic disorder. Alongside it, we witness the persistence of the Ukraine war—now in its fourth year and still dominated by the West’s refusal to engage in serious diplomacy and in acknowledging Russia’s legitimate security interests—as well as domestic turbulence in the United States.

Protests erupted nationwide on June 14—coincidentally Donald Trump’s birthday and the 250th anniversary of the founding of the US Army—against the perceived authoritarianism of his administration, while cities like Los Angeles see mounting resistance to federal ICE operations. People tend to forget—or, more accurately, people particularly on the left are unaware of—that a democratic system's governing executive in order to maintain social stability and security must grow more authoritarian the more society gets increasingly lawless and anarchistic. This apparent authoritarianism is a natural outcome of political evolution toward societal disintegration and internal striving rather than having anything to do with the reign of an absolute monarch or king. Local Democrat mayors and governors defy presidential directives and—in their civic illiteracy—act in support of the ignorant leftist mob.

Across the Atlantic, the European Union engages in its own form of institutional despotism. Unelected Eurocrats in Brussels frequently contest or sabotage Conservative triumphs in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Austria and other places. Under the pretense of unavoidable rule of law-interventions, results of democratic elections are nullified—exposing an ideological disdain of political leaders and administrations on the left for the very populations they purport to represent. Authoritarian imposition of the European Union on member states where conservative parties and candidates are democratically elected has meanwhile become a matter of course. These widespread pseudo-interventions of totalitarian character are proof that the world is ever more entangled in chaos and mayhem.

In this environment, violence and outright war are no longer an anomaly and appear to be on the resurgence. All promising attempts post-Cold War to usher the world into a new, more peaceful and cooperative order, have failed. From Washington’s neoconservative warmongers to the belligerent factions in Brussels, Berlin, London, and Paris, one sees little evidence of restraint or prudence. They act as if they’ve lost their minds and dropped their moral compasses long time ago. They push the continuation of armed conflict that comes at horrendous expenses for populations in terms of blood and treasure. The armament and buildup of military organizations across Europe and beyond accelerates at an alarming pace. The fiscal and human cost of these policies is staggering, yet they continue, animated by a doctrine that no longer consults moral reason.

Regarding Iran specifically, I have long maintained that a rational, credible, and peaceful deterrence strategy was available. In my essays of 10 August and 27 September 2017, published in this blog here and here and included in my 2024 book "44 & 45. The Tenures of US Presidents Barack H. Obama and Donald J. Trump. A Social-Philosophical Treatise" (pp. 158–162), I proposed to apply the already existing doctrine of Annihilation upon First Strike as a sufficient strategic response to North Korea. Now it should be applied to Iran as well. This doctrine assures powers that the US will not use nuclear means first against them, but will strike with all her might when herself and allies are attacked by nuclear means first. When paired with rigorous inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), this strategy would ensure Iran’s nuclear program remained confined to peaceful civilian purposes. No preemptive strikes, sabotage, or assassination campaigns were necessary—or justifiable.

One cannot help but wonder whether President Trump, now in his second term, is still in command of U.S. foreign policy? Or has he been sidelined by a permanent national security bureaucracy—the so-called “Deep State”—and shadow-government figures such as South-Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham and like-minded interventionists and war hawks? Trump doesn’t seem to be wholly informed about the ongoings in the security arena and left out of important decisions, such as the preemptive strike Israel’s against Iran. Trump’s 2019 decision to cancel retaliatory strikes against Iran following the downing of a U.S. drone showed prudence and moral instinct. It is hard to believe he would have approved the Israeli strikes amid active negotiations. And yet, if he was uninformed or bypassed, it raises profound constitutional and strategic questions about the erosion of civilian oversight in matters of war and peace.

Of course, I hold no illusions that either he or his advisors are familiar with the outlined positions. Although, fortunately, President Trump seems to have intuitive grasp of my idea when expressing on social media: "If we were attacked in any way, shape, or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the U.S Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before." If he added to this statement "if we or Israel or other allies in the region were attacked," the strategy of Annihilation Upon 1st Strike would render any preemptive application of violent means unnecessary. I have consistently called attention to the shocking illiteracy of Western security elites in the realm of strategic philosophy and international ethics. That these actors, hidden behind a screen of bureaucratic privilege and ideological confusion, continuously ignore wiser counsel is no surprise. It is, however, a tragedy.

The only hope of returning to reason and to bring the Western world to its senses is to restore the voice of philosophical insight in matters of policy as I have also pointed out in my book 44 & 45 mentioned above. As Immanuel Kant once emphasized in his 1795 essay "Zum ewigen Frieden" (Perpetual Peace), philosophers—who ideally think holistically and are immune to manipulation and propaganda—should be welcomed (again) into the ranks of political advisors and counselors to those in power.

Today, that advice is more needed than ever. Without it, the West drifts ever further from sanity, morality, and the rule of (moral) law—and closer to an age of chaos, unrestrained violence, and unreasonableness.

The Unreasonableness of European Political Elites Prevents Peace in the Ukraine-Russia War

The war in Ukraine, now entering its fourth year, has left the European Union and much of the West on the wrong side of history. This conflict, deeply rooted in the complex geopolitics of Russia, Ukraine, and the broader Western alliance, was—at least from Russia’s vantage point—never merely about territorial disputes or nationalistic ambition. It was instead about NATO expansion and the ongoing subjugation of Russian populations in the Donbas by Kiev in the wake of the Maidan Revolution in 2014. The response to these legitimate Russian concerns by the US and Europe has been short-sighted and historically misguided, and owed to a substantial failure in the West’s security policy design and diplomatic foresight. 

Ukraine’s potential accession to NATO would have represented a significant shift in the balance of power on Russia’s doorstep. Rather than an imperial ambition, as often portrayed by the West, this was a matter of national survival for Russia.  Despite Russia's repeated warnings, Western policymakers, particularly in the US and the EU, dismissed these concerns, choosing to expand NATO right up to Russia’s borders.

 Maidan and the Neglect of Russia’s National Security Interests 

The situation took a decisive turn after the 2014 Maidan Revolution in Ukraine, which was largely instigated by the United States. The revolution overthrew then-President Viktor Yanukovych, who had been seen as pro-Russian, and installed the anti-Russian Petro Poroshenko as the new president. This shift, backed by Washington and much of the EU, sowed deeper divisions within Ukraine, particularly in the Russian-speaking eastern and southern regions.

Instead of seeking peace and reconciliation and preparing Ukraine as a neutral bridge for political exchange between Russia and Europe, the West pushed Ukraine into an arms race that ultimately escalated the conflict. [for the rise in Ukraine's defense budget from 2013 until before the outbreak of the war see https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2022/02/russian-statesmanship-against-ukraine.html]. Feeling its hand forced, Russia moved toward the annexation of Crimea in 2014. From Russia’s perspective, this move was a necessary and strategic response to the destabilization of Ukraine and the growing military presence of NATO forces near its borders. Crimea, home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, held immense strategic significance. The possibility of Ukraine joining NATO posed a direct threat to Russia’s access to the Black Sea, making the annexation of Crimea an inevitable step in Russia’s security strategy.

As the Maidan Revolution unfolded, Russian-speaking minorities in these regions felt increasingly marginalized by the new Kiev government. Poroshenko’s policies, including restrictive language laws and the suppression of Russian cultural identity, led to a violent backlash that escalated into a full-blown civil conflict, with Russia stepping in to protect its ethnic kin and safeguard its strategic interests.

Failed Foreign Policies Cause Human Catastrophes

Some 800 people recently died when an overcrowded refugee vessel collided with a merchant ship in the Mediterranean. Among the rescued were a handful of people-smugglers, thus giving testimony to migrant-facilitators' business, thriving in the Middle East as it does in Mexico and Latin-America. As an entry gate into the E.U., Italy can hardly cope with refugees' seemingly never-ending stream from the north-African state belt. Both the Italian Navy and Coast Guard are overwhelmed by the challenge. The European Union is scrambling to find solutions. For now, more funds are supposed to flow into the refugee programs Triton and Poseidon. 

This exodus of people fleeing the conflict zones and war-torn areas of Africa and the Middle East is a direct result of the U.S. and the E.U.'s failed foreign policies. I have criticized the blunder of U.S. foreign policy, supported by the European Union and NATO, in my blog entries of 2011 on Libya (https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2011/03/us-and-european-foreign-policy-blunder.html) and 2013 on Syria (https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2013/05/disastrous-foreign-policy-failures.html), and warned against the policies of supporting violent and extremist insurgent movements while letting down established heads of state and governing political administrations. It began with the Muslim Brotherhood's support in Egypt against President Hosni Mubarak and then the US-led NATO campaign to take down Libya's Gaddafi. The support of a conglomerate of dubious insurgents in Syria was the third cornerstone of a U.S. foreign policy that is unethical and outright in the wrong, as it is ineffective and destructive. 

While the E.U. does everything in its power to help refugees and get a grip on the situation, it abides by its strict immigration policies, thus preventing the internal order from descending into utter chaos. In contrast, the U.S. is propping up its foreign policy blunder by national security foolishness, courtesy of presidential executive immigration orders that pave the way for more or less unlimited immigration, serving nothing but sealing the fate of future political and social disaster.

 

However, most concerning is the fact that these policies seem to find an ever broader acceptance and support on a bipartisan level. Powerful voices of senators, congress members, and presidential candidates for the 2016 race on the Republican side espouse similar, if not identical viewpoints on foreign policy and immigration. 

Given the U.S.'s two-party political system, one has to wonder how the State Department could alter its harmful stance on essential foreign policy and national security issues? If both major political forces align in their position on such topics, how could this ever change and U.S foreign affairs brought back to its senses?

Empirical evidence and the reality of failures don't appear to have any impact. Established authorities and political counterparts are merely doubling down and adding fuel to the fire. In previous commentaries, I have criticized the geopolitical madness vis-a-vis Russia that has been unfolding in Ukraine. Ideological prejudice and a certain arrogance appear to be the dominant forces in a media-driven political business that seemingly doesn't allow concessions to be wrong. What is supposed to be a sign of strength and compelling character is now considered a weakness. 

What can be a solution to this predicament in global affairs, for the most part, instigated by the failed policies of the U.S. and the Transatlantic alliance? Let me reveal a secret here not debated in the political realms, even at the reproach of talking pro domo.

I see the only hope for betterment in the return of philosophers to the ranks of political advisers and proper philosophical instruction to higher education curricula. As far as the former aspect is concerned, the political business, specifically the advisers to political stakeholders and executive decision-makers, has to be enriched and balanced by adding the holistic philosophical thinker to the equation. As far as the latter aspect is concerned, I am talking about conveying the broad history of ideas of philosophy. No lip service to philosophy by providing courses in which so-called philosophy professors and lecturers try to indoctrinate a liberal-progressive political agenda. What is needed is a focus on ontology and social and moral philosophy, thus enabling critical thinking and independent and profound judgment.

No longer must the hubris of jurists and economists, who too quickly get stuck in sterile materialism and superficial rationalism and whose consciousness is lacking profound philosophical reflection, dominate politics and policy-making.

UKRAINE AND THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY

After the follies in the Middle East – letting down the established political leaders in Egypt, Libya, and Syria and supporting dubious insurgent movements – the U.S. and the European Union's irreparable foreign policy screw-ups continue in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.

The Ukraine debacle, instigated by the U.S. and the European Union, is being exacerbated by the U.S. The respective governments have maneuvered themselves into seemingly irreversible positions. In the U.S., the disregard for geopolitical factors and geostrategic interests appears to be ubiquitous. In addition to the always clueless U.S. president and his administration – this author has long stopped wondering what type of "experts" advise this government – a host of senators and congressmen from both parties joined the inane chorus of foreign policy ignorance. Many pundits and op-ed writers set the stage for yet another policy failure when they pushed Russia's pathetic hostility and the Russian president.

How about some perspective on the whole affair? Besides the historical fact that the Crimean peninsula has been Russian and under Russian influence ever since Catherine the Great?
 
Mr. Yanukovych, the legitimate president of Ukraine, was elected in 2010 in free and fair elections as attested to by the OSCE.  However, he sealed his fate when he chose a custom union offered by Putin over a deal presented by the E.U. - $15 billion in loans and favorable rates on natural gas and oil versus loans and credits tied to economic reforms monitored by the IMF but no certainty of full E.U. membership.

The protesters subsequently forming in Kyiv – not all of them, but many of them – struck up tents and quarters, set up barricades, engaged the police in violent struggles by using Molotov cocktails, seized and burned down the headquarters of the ruling political party, and demanded the overthrow of the regime. It didn't help President Yanukovych much that he approved a full amnesty to all those arrested during the uprisings and offered to form a coalition government with the opposing party until the new presidential elections scheduled for 2015. The radical left overthrew Viktor Yanukovych, impeached him after seizing the parliament, and chased him out of the country. Does this look like democracy in action or rather like a coup d'etat no sovereign nation could accept? Is this the kind of political demonstration to which US-senator McCain should lend his support by flying into Kyiv and help taking sides against a legitimate government?

It is not the alleged old-Soviet type of imperialism of the ex-KGB officer Vladimir Putin that has maneuvered him into this precarious situation of possibly losing Ukraine and forcefully annexing the Crimea and perhaps the eastern parts of Ukraine, alienating himself and setting the stage for a new Cold War. The transatlantic realm's failed policies generated this quagmire and pushed it to the point of no return. If anybody finds themselves on the wrong side of history in all this, it is Mr. Obama in conjunction with Democratic ideologues and Republican neocons.

This author participated in the educational civil-military efforts within the framework of NATO's Partnership for Peace initiative in the 1990ies in eastern and southeastern Europe. He knows all too well what would have to happen now had the proponents of ignorant foreign policies gotten their way and brought Ukraine (and Georgia for that matter) to full NATO membership.

The military outreach of Russia to Crimea and probably other parts of Ukraine would invoke Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, meaning an attack on one is considered an attack on all. Armed intervention and an outright war would now be inevitable.