It’s a new phase in the Ukraine war as the Trump administration moves to hold talks with Russia without the presence of Ukraine or Europe. The Saudis will be in the mediating role, and the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, Trump’s Middle East special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, all will be part of this enterprise, which might end up upending American policy of the last three years. It’s a spectacular shift in Washington, and Europe is left scrambling for a response.
Though Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has said that Ukraine would “never accept deals made behind our backs without our involvement”, it’s not readily evident what options he has at this juncture when the US seems more than ready to walk away from European security. Zelenskyy’s call for the creation of an “army of Europe” came after US Vice-President JD Vance underlined the Trump administration’s perspective that Europe must “step up in a big way to provide for its own defence”. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth also made it clear that European nations must provide the “overwhelming” share of funding for Ukraine. More interestingly, he also said that it was “unrealistic” to expect Ukraine to return to its pre-2014 borders, and downplayed the prospect of Ukraine joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
A ‘Once In A Generation’ Moment
Though it was expected that the Trump presidency will bring its own set of challenges for Europe, there seems to be a complete rethink on the parameters of the US-Europe partnership. In response, European leaders are in Paris trying to hammer out a response to what UK leader Keir Starmer has described as a “once in a generation” moment for national security. Starmer himself has suggested that he is ready to place UK peacekeeping troops in Ukraine “to contribute to security guarantees to Ukraine”. Germany is also offering to do the same, but it might be too late in the game.
After investing three years of resources as well as diplomatic and military capital in trying to fend off Russian territorial advances, along with the US standing as an ally, the shift in the tone and tenor of American support might be disconcerting. For many in Europe, the danger might be that in the name of peace, Trump would strike a deal with Putin, putting Europe at a perpetual disadvantage. That the long-term costs of short-term political expediency will be borne by Europe is the fear that is now shaping European response.
When Vance warned his audience at the Munich Security Conference that they should fear neither Moscow nor Beijing but European leadership itself, he went further than many in Europe had anticipated. His argument, that “shutting down” unorthodox viewpoints is the “most surefire way to destroy democracy”, and his calling upon European leaders to “embrace what your people tell you”, was aimed more at putting mainstream European political leadership in their place rather than trying to find a common ground with allies to tackle regional and global challenges.
Shifting Priorities
For the Trump administration, Europe and its security are no longer the priority that many in the continent would like to believe. For the US, the centre of gravity of global politics has been gradually shifting to the Indo-Pacific, and Trump’s policies are perhaps the most dramatic manifestation of this understanding. In his first term as President, Trump consistently challenged long-standing alliances, most notably NATO, questioning its relevance and urging European nations to increase their defence spending. His “America First” policy emphasised a transactional view of international relations, where the US would support Europe only if its allies contributed more to shared defence and economic goals. In his second term, Trump seems even more willing to shake the foundations of America’s partnership with Europe.
But Europe has been very slow in responding to these changing realities. Now, the task before its leaders is to ensure that their ability to shape the US-Europe partnership remains in place to some extent. In Paris, Europe will have to ensure that it comes to an agreement to spend and do more for its own defence. It will also have to see how it can provide for the security of Ukraine after a ceasefire. The blunt rhetoric emanating from Washington and a sense of unpredictability being ushered in due to Trump’s outreach to Putin has left European leaders uncertain about the future of transatlantic relations.
As Trump disrupts the global order, one of the first casualties seems to be Europe, which is now left wondering about the future of its own security.
(Harsh V. Pant is Vice President for Studies at Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
