Europe braces itself with trepidation as the specter of Donald Trump potentially reclaiming the Oval Office looms ever larger. The shared apprehension centers around the possibility that he may restore his previous rapport with Vladimir Putin, to the detriment of Ukraine. As Trump’s tenure in office demonstrated, his admiration for the Russian leader is far from subtle. During the infamous Helsinki summit in 2018, he even prioritized Putin’s claims over U.S. intelligence assessments, signaling a profound shift in American foreign policy.
To Trump and his supporters, the conflict in Ukraine has often been framed as a burdensome drain on U.S. resources. His assertion that he could negotiate a resolution within a day felt less like a promise and more like a harbinger of a potential agreement that would favor the Kremlin—casting aside Ukraine and Europe in the process.
As if scripted, the developments on Wednesday night only reinforced these fears. Initial negotiations between American and Russian officials were to commence promptly. In a questionable move, Trump reached out to Ukrainian President Volodyr Zelensky following a conversation with Putin—a sequence that might raise eyebrows regarding the sincerity of his support for Ukraine.
At the same moment in Brussels, during the Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting, Trump’s defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, proclaimed that Ukraine’s hopes of joining NATO were dashed. Additionally, he suggested that Ukraine might need to relinquish Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014, further heightening alarm in capitals across Europe.
In Paris, representatives from Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, the UK, and the EU’s foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas voiced their concerns. They collectively demanded that Ukraine be included in negotiations while demanding “strong security guarantees” to fortify its position. The following day, at a NATO meeting, Kallas admonished the potential concessions regarding NATO and Crimea, cautioning that “Any quick fix is a dirty deal.”
The events of just 48 hours radically altered the Western stance on Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine. The president, long viewed as a pariah and war criminal by European leaders, found an unexpected ally in the new occupant of the White House, who appeared to have made two significant concessions before talks had even commenced.
Yet beneath the surface of these alarming developments, a cacophony of conflicting narratives emerged. While Hegseth painted a vision of a “prosperous” Ukraine, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant was in Kyiv positing the idea of a “security shield” in exchange for substantial Ukrainian resources. On Thursday night, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio assured his Ukrainian counterpart of America’s unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s independence—a stark contradiction to the preceding actions. The dissonance underscored a troubling reality; Trumpist calls for Europe to shoulder more responsibility had reached a crescendo.
In acknowledging the severity of Russian aggression aimed at seizing additional Ukrainian territory, Hegseth emphasized that it was crucial for Europe to shoulder this important responsibility.
For more than a year, European leaders have been warily contemplating a Trump return. Discussions have erupted over how the EU could fill a potential military, economic, and diplomatic vacuum in Ukraine if U.S. support wavered. Since Russia’s invasion in early 2022, EU member states have progressively increased their defense budgets, striving to replenish armaments sent to Ukraine while bolstering their own defenses.
Closer ties have been forged between the EU and NATO, focused on defense planning and addressing capability gaps. For Europe, questions about how to finance these ambitions highlighted a pressing need—a European Commission White Paper set to unveil strategies for collective security and industrial defense capabilities.
The narrative that the U.S. has delivered disproportionate support compared to Europe has been firmly challenged. Contrasting figures reveal that since February 2022, EU states have furnished nearly €100 billion in military, financial, and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine, overshadowing the roughly €80.5 billion provided by the U.S. Additionally, Europe has committed €20 billion towards refugee assistance.
Initially, there were hopes that Trump might adopt a tougher approach toward Putin. A swift, detrimental Russian victory in Ukraine, should U.S. support wane, could easily lead to a legacy akin to Joe Biden’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, haunting Trump throughout his presidency.
Despite some tactical gains on the battlefield in 2024 following previous setbacks, signals indicated Western sanctions might be starting to take a toll on the Russian economy—marked by surging inflation and labor shortages. This scenario presented a compelling opportunity for Trump to place pressure on Putin. A report by the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) underscored the necessity for allies to outline severe consequences if Russia persisted in its aggressive strategies.
“Now is the time for allies to exploit Russia’s vulnerabilities,” CEPA noted, advocating for unwavering military support for Ukraine while amplifying economic sanctions on Russia. They firmly believe that any leniency risks a protracted conflict reminiscent of Afghanistan, inevitably extracting a higher price in blood and resources.
Hints of Trump’s potential alignment with this tough stance emerged on January 23, when he cautioned Putin about there being “an easy way and a hard way,” threatening increased sanctions if he resisted negotiations aimed at concluding the war. Behind the scenes, however, the complexities of continued European diplomacy have unfolded amid an administration that no longer aligns with its allies.
Senior European officials have noted a shift in the landscape: the traditional avenues for diplomatic engagement within the U.S. government evaporated with personnel turnovers, complicating relations. A prominent diplomat expressed that panic responses to Trump’s unpredictable moves would fundamentally misinterpret his approach. “It’s critical that we remain united and navigate this situation strategically,” the diplomat advised.
Thus far, establishing a cooperative dialog between Europe and the White House has proven challenging, necessitating a delicate balance of trade and security concerns. To make their voices heard, European leaders may need to diplomatically charm the new administration while establishing a common ground.
As Trump seeks his legacy, particularly regarding peace negotiations, one must question the narrative he projects: will he penalize Ukraine, pressuring them toward capitulation in favor of Russian terms? Such a path would only deepen the crises within NATO and starkly undermine years of struggle.
Deputy Secretary of State JD Vance recently suggested that the U.S. possesses substantial economic and military leverage to coax Putin to the bargaining table. Still, the implications of withholding military support from Ukraine loom ominously, casting shadows over the future. How will these developments shape the dynamics of negotiation? One wonders about the path forward for both Zelensky and Putin.
Currently, with Russian control over a fifth of Ukrainian territory—encompassing strategic regions like Crimea and Donetsk—the canvas for negotiation is complex and marred by bloodshed. The resilience of Ukraine’s populace, worn down after years of war, faces daunting challenges. Militarily, Ukraine has begun to produce a portion of its drone needs, yet a shortage of experienced troops hampers its offensive capabilities.
Amidst these struggles, the prospect of creating new brigades only exacerbates challenges with manpower. Michael Kofman, a military analyst, emphasized that fresh conscripts have been deployed ineffectively, denying experienced soldiers the reinforcements they require at the frontlines.
Yet if Ukraine stabilizes its defenses, prospects could brighten—especially if Trump secures congressional backing for further military aid. Nevertheless, what genuine incentive remains for Putin to engage in peace talks? Little, it seems, as he has constructed a war economy, elevating defense spending to an impressive 8% of GDP, actively drawing in support from military ranks, including North Korean troops. The ongoing militarization of Russia is an emblem of a leader willing to bear heavy costs for territorial acquisition.
Consequently, as Putin questions the viability of U.S. military backing for Ukraine, the likelihood of reaching a meaningful agreement seems bleak—a reality compounded by the Kremlin’s unwavering war aims, targeting the subjugation of Ukraine and a determined push to erase Ukrainian history and culture.
In conversations with foreign dignitaries, President Trump may emit rhetoric promoting peace and reconciliation. Still, the question remains: will his actions derail the possibilities of a genuine settlement? For the countries of Europe and the embattled nation of Ukraine, these are challenging days ahead.
As Zelensky faces the grim prospect of negotiating with a looming shadow overhead, making concessions to keep an even more brutal regime at bay will undoubtedly pose as bitterly contentious. Each step forward may be steeped in heavy cost—be it political, territorial, or human. Will history remember this moment as a pragmatic shift in geopolitics or a troubling retreat from humanity?
Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times International – Monitoring
