US President Donald Trump’s decision to initiate direct negotiations with Moscow to end the Russia-Ukraine war, without involving Ukraine or Europe, marks a seismic shift in transatlantic relations and the global order.
By sidelining key stakeholders, Trump is not only reshaping the geopolitical landscape but also threatening to unravel Europe’s security framework, leaving the continent in an increasingly precarious position.
Trump has long expressed frustration over the prolonged US military support for Ukraine. While his first term as president was defined by scepticism towards NATO and a transactional approach to alliances, his second term has already seen a far more assertive push for Ukraine to broker a swift political settlement.
The proposed terms of this would effectively legitimise Russia’s annexation of nearly 20 per cent of Ukraine’s territory, seized since the war began three years ago.
Even before returning to the White House, Trump made it clear that he did not see the war as a direct threat to US national security. In his view, an ocean separates America from the battlefield, and the conflict has not imposed significant economic, political, or security costs on Washington.
On the contrary, the US defence industry has profited immensely from arms sales to Ukraine and its European allies. However, from Trump’s perspective, the war has become a geopolitical liability, one that has failed to weaken Russia, deepened Moscow’s ties with Beijing, diverted the Western focus from the far more consequential contest with China, and drained Europe’s economic and military resources in what his administration considers to be a “secondary battle” on the chessboard of global power.
As a result of this outlook, Trump is pressing for swift negotiations, regardless of whether Ukraine and Europe participate. His administration’s expectation is clear: Ukraine must align with Washington’s vision or risk losing US support altogether.
Trump’s perspective on the war’s origins further shapes his diplomatic stance. In an interview with Fox News Radio, he dismissed the prevailing narrative that Russian President Vladimir Putin is solely responsible for the conflict, saying he was “tired” of hearing such claims.
He then went further, branding Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a “dictator” for postponing last year’s presidential elections in Ukraine under martial law. Trump argued that Zelensky has no real leverage over Russia, making his participation in further diplomatic talks futile.
His criticism extended beyond Kyiv. Trump rebuked French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer for failing to take decisive steps to end the war. Meanwhile, US businessman Elon Musk, a key Trump ally, accused Zelensky of prolonging the war for financial gain, alleging high-level corruption within the Ukrainian government.
Adding further complexity, Trump has introduced a contentious economic dimension to the conflict. His administration recently suggested that Ukraine offer the US access to its vast reserves of rare minerals, essential for high-tech and defence industries, as repayment for US military aid.
This proposal places Kyiv in an impossible bind: it desperately needs continued US support, but many view Trump’s offer as thinly veiled economic blackmail.
Despite mounting pressure from Washington, Ukraine has refused to sign two proposed agreements concerning its mineral wealth. One draft stipulated that 50 per cent of Ukraine’s profits from rare minerals be allocated towards repaying what the US claims is a $500 billion debt, all without any security guarantees.
The second proposal demanded that Ukraine forfeit revenues from rare minerals, oil, gas, and port operations until the debt was fully settled.
Trump’s claim that Ukraine owes $500 billion has left Ukrainian officials bewildered. Most US and European estimates suggest that the total US military and economic support for Ukraine amounts to approximately $200 billion. Nearly half of this funding has benefited US defence contractors, whose sales have surged at an unprecedented rate over the past three years.
Zelensky has rejected Trump’s proposed deal as “100 per cent credit,” arguing that it would force Ukraine to repay $2 for every dollar received in aid. Kyiv warns that such terms would saddle future generations with an unbearable financial burden.
“I will not sign what ten generations of Ukrainians will have to pay,” Zelensky declared.
Amid the growing backlash, the controversial $500 billion clause appears to have been removed from the latest draft agreement. Both US and Ukrainian officials suggest that the negotiations are making progress.
For its European allies, the prospect of Washington siphoning off Ukraine’s mineral wealth has set off alarm bells. Many EU member states, particularly Germany and France, view Ukraine as a critical economic and security partner.
Beyond the economic concerns, Trump’s broader policy shift has sent shockwaves through European capitals. His willingness to end the war on terms favourable to Moscow, including the tacit recognition of Russia’s territorial gains, has forced European leaders to reassess their strategic footing in an era when US security guarantees can no longer be taken for granted.
In Berlin, Friedrich Merz, the man expected to be Germany’s next chancellor, has warned that Europe must act swiftly to bolster its defence in response to Trump’s increasingly isolationist stance.
“It is five minutes to midnight for Europe,” Merz declared, urging decisive action as Washington pivots towards “America alone.”
This bold stance by Germany could mark the beginning of a major shift in European security, paving the way for greater strategic independence from the United States.
For years, France alone has championed the idea of European strategic autonomy, pushing for the creation of a joint European army. However, these efforts have met resistance from two key allies: Britain, which has traditionally prioritised its special relationship with Washington, and Germany, which has relied on US nuclear protection since the end of World War II.
But now Germany’s position appears to be shifting.
However, any meaningful shift towards European strategic independence will require significant time and financial investment, both of which Europe currently lacks. As a result, the continent faces two equally unpalatable choices.
It could defy Washington and bear the burden alone. If the European nations reject Trump’s terms, they will have to sustain Ukraine’s war effort alone, a financially and militarily daunting task. Without US support, Europe’s ability to sustain Ukraine long-term is highly uncertain.
Alternatively, it could acquiesce in Trump’s vision. Accepting Trump’s terms would mean ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia, a bitter concession that would expose Europe’s strategic weakness, damaging its credibility.
On Monday, during high-stakes talks in Washington, Macron sought to leverage his personal rapport with Trump to dissuade him from turning a political settlement into Ukraine’s surrender.
However, it is widely expected that the US will ultimately prioritise its own interests. Both Starmer and Zelensky are set to visit Washington in the coming days, but few anticipate any shift in Trump’s stance.
In a clear sign of the widening gap between Washington and its European allies, the UN Security Council on Monday approved a US-drafted resolution marking the anniversary of the war yet notably omitting any direct reference to Russian aggression.
The resolution secured 10 votes in favour, while five members, including key European allies such as the UK and France, chose to abstain.
In stark contrast, a separate EU-backed resolution in the UN General Assembly, which explicitly condemned Russia’s actions, passed with the support of 93 nations. Meanwhile, 18 countries, including the US, Russia, Belarus, and North Korea, opposed it, underscoring a dramatic shift in US policy since Trump’s return to office.
Although Trump views China as the greatest strategic challenge to the US, he also recognises that this does not have a military solution. Since the start of his second term, he has repeatedly praised Chinese President Xi Jinping, calling him a “wise leader.”
A distinct pattern is emerging—one that is becoming increasingly evident: Trump is determined to ease geostrategic tensions with both China and Russia, even if it comes at Europe’s expense.
On Monday, Putin proposed selling Russia’s rare earth minerals to US companies, including those in Ukrainian territories currently under Russian control. The move reinforced his message to Trump that there are lucrative opportunities in fostering good relations with Russia. Shortly afterwards Trump hinted at “major economic development transactions with Russia,” further signalling his intent to pursue business ties with Moscow.
On the same evening, Xi and Putin held a telephone call in which they reaffirmed their deepening bilateral ties, describing their relationship as a stabilising force in global affairs. According to Beijing’s official readout of the conversation, Xi emphasised that China-Russia relations possess a “strong internal driving force and unique strategic value.”
For Europe, the strengthening alignment between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing poses an immense security, political, and economic challenge. As history has often shown, when the interests of great powers converge, the lofty slogans that once concealed raw self-interest tend to disappear, leaving smaller players, this time including Europe, to face the harsh realities of realpolitik.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 27 February, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: