A symbol of American power, the Oval Office witnessed last Friday a confrontation unlike any seen in recent memory. The whole world observed a tense exchange between an American president and the leader of a war-torn ally, as the former delivered a momentous declaration: “You either make a deal or we are out. It was more than a diplomatic breakdown; it signaled a major shift in U.S. policy regarding European security. Trump’s recent overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin have left Kyiv and its European allies on edge. Positioning himself as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine, the U.S. president has sidelined the traditional leadership role of the West while prioritizing rapprochement with Moscow. With Europe now poised to fill the void, the aftermath of this meeting reveals a broader truth: the unraveling of long-standing alliances, and the dawn of an era where Europe must assume responsibility for its own defense. Now Europe finds itself back at square one. Not merely for Ukraine, but for the very future of democracy, territorial integrity, and the liberal world order, the stakes are profound. This is more than a tale of diplomatic discord; it is a critical juncture capable of reshaping the European and global balance of power.
What made this fiery White House meeting extraordinary was not just its public nature but the American president’s apparent alignment with Russia over a democratic ally striving to join NATO. At the heart of the West, NATO’s core members have long been united by a shared perception of the Soviet Union as a threat, and a commitment to liberal principles of democracy, free elections, and the rule of law, both domestically and internationally. This values-based community contrasts with Donald Trump, his team, and the US far right, who have diverged from those values.
For decades, presidents from both parties upheld the principle that supporting democratic nations served American and Western interests. However, the current administration views Ukraine as little more than a bargaining chip in negotiations with Moscow. When asked whether he sided with Ukraine or remained neutral, Trump declared he was “in the middle.” His recent caustic remarks—calling Zelenskyy a “dictator” and claiming Kyiv started the war, only reinforced his apparent deviation from the Western concept of collective solidarity.
The repercussions of the Zelenskyy-Trump meeting, coupled with Trump’s demand for Europe to assume greater responsibility, has strained transatlantic relations. Advancing its own peace process and committing military support, Europe is redefining its strategy in the face of U.S. disengagement.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has maintained that any settlement must contain assurance from Western allies to protect Ukraine from further aggression. Russian track record offers little reassurance, however. On February 28, during a long-awaited meeting with US President Donald Trump in White House, president Zelenskyy recounted how Moscow violated a previous ceasefire before its full-scale invasion in 2022. The altercation erupted when Vice President J.D. Vance claimed former President Joe Biden had only offered empty threats and that it was time to pursue diplomacy. Zelenskyy, exasperated, shot back: “What kind of diplomacy?” He reminded Vance that Russian aggression began over a decade ago in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and that diplomacy had repeatedly failed to stop Putin. “He cannot be trusted” From Georgia to Donbas, Putin has a record of exploited ceasefires to advance his strategic goals. Historically, Moscow has flouted the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and has violated ceasefire agreements in Donbas. In a stark display of disregard, the world watched as Donald Trump dismissed Ukraine’s demands, citing their lack of cards. Where trust is questionable, peace without guarantees is a fallacy. With one-fifth of Ukraine already occupied and incremental gains since 2023, even a brief ceasefire risks recognizing Russian control. It would not only reward aggression but also set a dangerous precedent of bypassing international law. The consequences would ripple across the global order, and would threaten sovereignty and territorial integrity. Clearly, the stakes are too high to accept a flawed agreement. It would also embolden other authoritarian regimes, and would signal that the Liberal world order is willing to tolerate the erosion of sovereignty for a fragile peace. A hasty resolution would not only sacrifice Ukraine’s sovereignty but also destabilize Europe and weaken NATO’s credibility.
In the wake of the tumultuous White House meeting, Europe has stepped forward to wrest control of negotiations over the Russia-Ukraine war away from the U.S. The London summit, held on March 2 and attended by 19 European leaders alongside NATO representatives, underscored Europe’s growing determination to redefine its role on the global stage. The pivotal gathering, ‘Securing Our Future,’ marked a decisive response to watershed moment in global politics following Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
The absence of the U.S. as a reliable partner has left Europe at a crossroads. Trump’s America First agenda has fundamentally altered the dynamics of international diplomacy, and Europe can no longer count on Washington to take the lead. It is difficult to envision Europe fully replacing the comprehensive support the U.S. provides, which means Ukraine’s military challenges are likely to persist. Rachel Ellehuus, director general of the Royal United Services Institute, highlights three critical areas where U.S. contributions remain indispensable: air defense, where European alternatives to Patriot systems are limited; long-range ballistic missiles, with Germany refusing to supply Taurus missiles and Franco-British Storm Shadow missiles in scarce supply; and satellite communications, where Elon Musk’s Starlink remains vital on the front lines. While there have been talks about establishing a European-led “reassurance force” to help secure stability in Ukraine, such a move would require at least a temporary ceasefire. Russia has already expressed opposition to NATO member countries deploying peacekeepers, and although it may not have veto power over territories it doesn’t control, its resistance would place European troops in a precarious position. UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, revealed that he collaborated with France and Ukraine to develop a plan to end the war, and the group of leaders—primarily from Europe—agreed on four key principles. These steps toward armisetic include: ensuring continued aid to Kyiv and maintaining economic pressure on Russia to strengthen Ukraine’s negotiating position; guaranteeing Ukraine’s presence at the bargaining table and securing its sovereignty and Inviolability in any peace deal; and continuing to arm Ukraine to deter future aggression.
