Despite two successive summits of world powers within days, the war in Ukraine continues unabated. Oddly enough, there is no ceasefire in sight as the international interlocutor and peace- maker Donald Trump prepares for a trilateral meeting between himself, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In Washington summit on the 18th August, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz aptly remarked, “I cannot imagine that the next meeting could take place without a ceasefire”.

Let us recall the outcome of both the summits in order to pontificate on the future course of action on this horrific war in Ukraine that started in February 2022. The attention of the whole world was fixed on the Alaska Summit on 15 August between Trump and Putin. This was so because the former claims to be a deal-maker and a peace-broker although there are divided opinions about this across his country. The European leaders like Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte have somewhat admired Trump’s initiative and the leadership. Meloni said that, for the first time, she saw signs of peace in Ukraine; whereas Rutte recognised Trump’s leadership in brokering a deal. Those may be parts of the ‘charm offensive’ as Europe is fully dependent on America on the Ukrainian war and its own security.
Talking of the outcome of the Alaska Summit, there was no concrete conclusion to the war, starting with a ceasefire. In that sense, it did not yield a breakthrough. The European Union as well as USA would have liked to see a ceasefire during the course of negotiations towards a peace agreement. At the same time, Russian leadership had resisted the calls for a ceasefire. The points on the table at Alaska were mainly the Russian conditions for a ceasefire and eventual peace agreement. They were: recognition of the territories it has already annexed, ‘Ukraine’s neutrality’ and ‘demilitarisation’ on the Russian borders. Russia would like the borders drawn at Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, and full control of Donbas. Trump’s condition was only one; ‘peace at any cost’.
At the meeting in Washington, the conditions put forth by Zelenskyy and European countries present, are not fully known yet. The European leaders included Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, Giorgia Meloni, Mark Rutte (NATO Secretary General), Friedrich Merz, Finnnish President Alexander Stubbs and the EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. All these leaders constitute, ‘coalition of the willing’. At the end of the meeting, Trump called the Russian President and talked for 40 minutes mainly to fix a trilateral meeting sooner than later. He sounded out to the world that USA will extend security guarantees to Ukraine in a post-war scenario.
If the talks for a peace agreement in the aforesaid trilateral meeting fails, Trump did not rule out US involvement in the war with its ‘unique aviation power’, although he asserted that Europe will be the first line of defence and USA will not put the boots on the ground. Zelenskyy came out of the meeting with a 90 billion USD arms deal comprising aviation system and anti-missile system.
Some of us have been focusing on the involvement of Poland and India in the Ukrainian war. Both India and Poland are frontline states, (India against China) having a great deal of stakes in the war. Poland borders Russia as India has a long stretch of border with China. Russia and China have authoritarian and expansionist leadership, and what is worse; they are in a ‘for-ever alliance’. So reactions of these two countries, shaping their strategies are important for observers and analysts to watch. Both countries are rising world powers with a fresh set of principles for world politics, having undergone, unlike many other European countries, the agony of colonisation
Alaska did not bring any fresh winds for India. There was no change of American current policy towards India. High tariffs on Indian goods will continue for now. Indian foreign policy based recently on Prime Minister Modi’s bonhomie consisting of handshakes and embraces is being pushed to its limit. Modi’s open support to Trump’s candidature for the second term in 2020 and later, Trump’s welcome to India, Namaste Trump (Salute Trump) have faded into inconsequence. Trump believes in the present without much reference to the past. India will now have to deal with the rest of the term of Trump’s presidency. New Delhi has perhaps begun doing so by lurching back to Moscow and seeking to contain China. In that context, it may be noted that Putin debriefed Modi on his meeting with Trump at Alaska. The current Indian reaction to Trump’s highhanded approach towards India is of course debatable.
In Warsaw, there have been strong reactions to the Alaska meet. Even before the Summit, the Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk had expressed, “many fears and much hope”. It was the manifestation of a serious and mixed anticipation. The Polish media however strongly reacted to Trump’s hinting at Ukraine conceding the territories grabbed by Russia. Polish perspective prominently placed in the media is that, “Alaska was the modern version of Yalta Conference of 1945 which had left Poland and the other Eastern European states under the Soviet control. It was a betrayal for Europe and Ukraine”.
Poland has not been in favour of Ukraine giving away its territories. Prime Minister Donald Tusk had said, “State borders may not be changed by force”. This perspective is echoed in French President’s Macron’s stronger view that, “Putin has sought to redraw borders to increase his power. He needs to keep eating territories. That means he is a predator, an ogre at our gates”.
Also, Poland was left out of the high table in East Room at Oval where Trump met Zelenskyy and other European leaders. That was a conspicuous absence of Poland as Warsaw bears the brunt of Russian invasion, and now a continental military powerhouse. To rub salt into the wound, Finland, a ‘minnow’ among European powers, was invited. This may partly be explained by the structural ambiguity in Polish foreign policy. The foreign policy portfolio of Poland is split between the President and the government. Although, day-to-day foreign affairs are conducted by the government, the President has certain privileges – ratifying treaties and representing the country on the international stage.
The above-said ambiguity was eminently exposed in 2008 when both President and the Prime Minister turned up to a European Union meeting. Interestingly, Donald Trump wants the new Poland’s President Karol Nawrocki, a MAGA (Make America Great Again) supporter to represent Poland not the Prime Minister, Donald Tusk. The Prime Minister is a robust pro-European with a nationalist bent of mind. However, unless Poland resolves this structural duality of its foreign policy, it may be hamstrung in conducting its world affairs.
To reiterate, what I have been advocating in this column, India and Poland need to come closer in sharing and shaping their international outlook. Both countries can successfully contribute to a permanent peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. Poland should mobilise Europe as India works on Russia. Europe must play a bigger role commensurate with its potential in international issues over which it currently has limited influence.

Email:-----------------dr.dkgiri@gmail.com