Three Conferences, and What They Mean for Europe

Author: Oliver Poyser 

Three Conferences, and What They Mean for Europe

In the last few weeks, the world has seen three key sections of the international political order converge in three separate conferences. First, Russia and the United States held a summit in Alaska – cordial talks between an autocracy and a democracy worryingly moving towards authoritarianism. Secondly, President Trump met the leaders of select democratic European states in Washington D.C. to discuss the state of US’s global obligations. Lastly, in Tianjin and Beijing, the autocratic regime of China hosted totalitarian allies, while courting nominally democratic states who no longer feel American pressure to liberalise.

Now, discussions are ongoing over whether there will be another meeting – one between Zelensky and Putin themselves. There have been many bilateral and multilateral meetings since the war began, holding direct or indirect relevance to the current bargaining positions of both Russia and Ukraine. However, these last three most recent meetings will be especially relevant. Each was an attempt to capitalise on opportunities provided by one side or another, thereby revealing (assumed) strengths and weaknesses on either side.

Pursuing Peace, Anchorage, Alaska, U.S., 16th August

This first conference was a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. In what was arguably less of a bilateral between two nations and more of a personal chat between two leaders, the pair appeared closer than the current global situation should merit. Before the summit, Trump was threatening sanctions on Russia if a temporary ceasefire with Ukraine was not agreed. However, once it began, he made one vague reference to the ongoing full-scale invasion. He made no reference to Russia’s brutal occupation, or to Russia’s active attempts to destabilise Europe, or to the fact that the Alaska Summit took place in spite of the open arrest warrant for Putin for his many war crimes. Instead, the US president simply alluded to “five, six, seven thousand people a week” being killed, at a press conference held after the talks concluded.

The moment Putin stepped off the plane, Trump gave him an unplanned trip to the conference venue in his limousine, where they were seen laughing together. This was an obvious blow for Ukraine. While Russia did not get Trump to agree to their proposed peace plan, they did get him to stop pressuring them for an immediate ceasefire. All at a time when the situation on the ground was to their advantage, having just made strategic gains. All that remained of the apparent American concern over the suffering of Ukrainian civilians was a letter from First Lady Melania Trump to Putin about the capture of Ukrainian children by Moscow – kidnapped and forcibly deported by Moscow in its attempt to erase the Ukrainian culture and people.

It was not the worst possible outcome – that would have been a capitulation to a Russian peace proposal – but it was still a defeat. What was meant to be a revitalisation of American support for Ukraine, after months of reluctance, was turned into a Russian tool to knock America into a détente. A slap in the face of those fighting for Ukraine’s freedom and the future of Europe.

This all showed that the Americans, under the leadership of Trump, are no longer a reliable ally of Ukraine. While it did not actively seek to harm Ukrainian interests, it did throw away a planned crucial opportunity to strengthen Ukraine’s position by instead focusing on strengthening America’s interests. How Putin was so easily able to turn Trump’s peace seeking into wilful ignorance is unknown. It may have been domestic frustration over how much the United States is spending on support for Ukraine, a desire to realign with a now ideologically closer state, or even remaining manufactured anger at perceived disrespect from Zelensky in February for not wearing a suit – any of these were strings Putin could pull.

White House Multilateral Meeting on Ukraine, Washington D.C., U.S., 18th August

Three days later, Zelensky and European leaders of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ came to D.C. to minimise the damage caused by the Alaska summit. Alongside him, Zelensky had the support of Prime Minister Keir Starmer (UK), President Alexander Stubb (Finland), President Emmanuel Macron (France), President Giorgia Meloni (Italy), Chancellor Frederich Mertz (Germany) and the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, as well as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

Trump sought to meet Zelensky first. The pre-talk press conference went well, with Zelensky managing to this time avoid Trump’s selective ire by wearing a suit, and to follow Melania’s letter to Putin with one to her from his own wife, First Lady Olena Zelenska. However, despite this impressive media performance, neither he nor the other European leaders managed to secure anything in writing behind closed doors. Instead, Trump interrupted the talks with all present leaders halfway through to call Putin for over forty minutes. Yet another slap in the face, as Trump perfectly illustrated who he was more interested in talking to about Europe’s future.

Despite this, there were glimmers of hope. Trump did hint at security guarantees for Ukraine, also stating that Putin had apparently accepted that security guarantees would have to be a part of any final peace deal. However, it is unlikely that these security guarantees will be substantive defences for Ukraine, such as a NATO-style treaty that would make an attack on Ukraine an attack on all guarantor nations, as Meloni suggested at the conference.

So far, all that has been revealed of these guarantees is a $90 billion arms deal between the United States and Ukraine, which will involve the purchase of new American weapons by Ukraine - as well as the purchase of Ukrainian weapons by the United States, to encourage domestic weapons production. Less of an outright commitment to Ukraine’s security and more of another business transaction for the man who is all about the ‘art of the deal’.

These concessions paint the United States’ position as unclear. Trump was willing to call Putin, while simultaneously providing weapons to Ukraine. It was a lack of clarity that would influence global perception of Trump even further. As is always the case with summits such as this, the devil is in the details and its name appears to be Trump.

2025 China Victory Parade, Beijing, People’s Republic of China, 3rd September

Then, on the 3rd of September, Beijing played host to the world’s foremost authoritarians, alongside those they have peeled away from collapsing American soft power. Trump was left to do nothing but complain at being left out of the event(s) on X, claiming that Putin was conspiring against the United States with Xi Jinping and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un – for whom the parade was the first multinational event he attended since taking power in 2011.

A wide array of leaders from Africa and Asia attended. While not at the parade, Indian Prime Minister Modi did attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting that took place a few days earlier. This was the first meeting between the leaders of China and India since 2022, and the first on Chinese soil in seven years. The two were pictured holding hands (alongside Putin) and laughing - indicating a considerable change in attitude from India which, despite having a number of formal ties with China, is often in tension over control of Kashmir and Tibet.

But more important is the ease at which foreign leaders attended the parade alongside Kim Jong Un. North Korea is seen as beyond reproach by most world leaders – especially those of democratic states – and yet a number of elected representatives were happy to be seen sitting by him. The apparent thawing of global relations with the modern day ‘hermit kingdom’ is particularly concerning. It should be seen as yet another alarm bell that extreme authoritarianism, absolute autocracy, and the borderline-despotic treatment of citizens at home is becoming increasingly accommodated and accepted by world leaders across the globe.

This included European leaders – not just Putin or Lukashenko, and those on the margins such as Serbian president Aleksander Vučić, but also the Prime Minister of Slovakia, Robert Fico – an EU leader. The Hungarian and Turkish foreign ministers also attended. All of these three are representatives of NATO members. Yet, they chose to attend a military parade alongside the two main military rivals of NATO.

It is hard to infer anything from this other than yet another signal of significant weakness in the alliance. And it is hard to pin that on anywhere other than the United States. All of these states have flirted with China and even Russia since they elected autocratic-leaning presidents and prime ministers. Their attendance at an event like this is not shocking – but it is telling that Xi Jinping now thinks that he can include a leader as unsavoury as Kim Jong Un in the same event as them without consequence.

The consequences of the conferences

The flip-flopping displayed by Trump in the previous two summits clearly led leaders to one conclusion – that America was no longer a power to be feared, but instead one to feed compliments while simultaneously undermining its interests behind its back.

This does not speak to a world led by liberal democracies. It instead speaks to a world where the ideology to aspire to is authoritarianism – where, if there are to be elections, they are to take place in the ‘illiberal democracies’ that Viktor Orban has advocated. It would be difficult to claim that this change is uninfluenced by the increasingly dictatorial rhetoric of President Trump domestically, and the lack of support for and coordination with his European liberal democratic allies, as epitomised by the Alaska and D.C. summits.

As High Representative Kaja Kallas stated, this parade showed the signs of an ‘autocratic alliance’. This response from the EU is to be expected and is welcome – however, it is as yet unclear how the EU intends to manage the inclusion of its own member states in this alliance. What is more concerning is that, far from denouncing it, the reaction of President Trump was to moan that he had not been invited.

For Ukraine, this is unhelpful. Both China and India are funding Russia by purchasing Russian products. Turkey has an admittedly complex relationship with Moscow, but Serbia, Slovakia and Hungary are seemingly copying Trump’s strategy by playing both sides simultaneously. See-sawing between words of support and even aid for Ukraine, and business with Russia – albeit in a more precise way than Trump. This is not yet a bloc – as clearly demonstrated by the reactions to the incursion of Russian drones into Polish airspace earlier last month, which Orban’s Hungary denounced as ‘unacceptable’, whilst Trump and the United States initially condemned Russia; before once again see-sawing and turning to claim it may have been ‘accidental’.

What it means, and what we can do

This does not mean that these nations aren’t an active threat to a liberal world – as shown by Hungary’s blocking of EU funds to Ukraine – but there is still some hope. Thankfully, these European states of concern are still electoral democracies – their leaderships can be voted out, and their foreign policy can therefore be changed. But this is not a cause for complacency – it is exactly the opposite. Liberals have been the foremost opposition to autocracy in Europe – whether in or out of the EU. The future of the liberal democratic international order depends on electing liberals wherever possible. It isn’t just the nations which are on the brink of authoritarian collapse where this matters – it only takes one election for democratic parties to be replaced by post-democratic disruptors sponsored by the Kremlin.

Ultimately, the increasing confidence of Russia, China, and North Korea – as well as other autocracies, such Iran – is due to China becoming the only source of stable international leadership. Nations are not necessarily taking flight from the United States because Trump is appearing authoritarian, but rather because he is unable to commit to autocracy or democracy, or frankly any long-term opinion or plan at all.

We are moving into a world where most states are abandoning democratic alliances regardless of whether they’re moving away from democracy or not, because the flip-flopping of those at the head of these alliances means they no longer provide the security or leverage they once did. But in Europe, it does seem like allegiance is genuinely based on ideology rather than pure pragmatism. Liberals can make a difference wherever they’re elected, but the EU and its allies remain one of the few genuinely strong democratic blocs in principle – one that cannot be turned to autocracy by a couple of elections. However, the EU must match this principled purpose with practical action on the global level that redoubles the democratic alliances of the world.

Liberals, both in ALDE and elsewhere, seek to make Europe a third pole in the new multipolar world. One that is undeniably and reliably democratic, and unable to be turned into an unstable partner by a change in leadership. The latest 2025 ALDE Party Congress had Liberal leaders from across Europe gather under the slogan "Making Europe a global superpower." This shows a concerted effort and energy from Liberals to fill the vacuum of democratic leadership and drive Europe's influence to stand against autocracy.

If both China and America see Putin as their new closest ally, then Ukraine can only be helped by the democracies of Europe. As Liberals, we must step up and reaffirm Europe’s identity as the birthplace of democracy. Through our votes, our campaigning, and our actions – both in and outside of government – Liberals can and must affirm a collective foreign policy that rejects autocratic authoritarianism and flies the banner of democracy proudly. But to do that with purpose we must also strive to strengthen Europe at home. Never has it been more important to face down the threat of autocratic populism and build our collective economic strength – to provide both stability and resources to our global fight for democracy.