If there were a motto to encapsulate Donald Trump’s second term as US President, it would undoubtedly be: I will do things my way. His address to the joint session of Congress on Tuesday evening—delivered
in the wake of a pivotal week in transatlantic relations—underscored his unyielding commitment to his chosen path, irrespective of convention, controversy, or criticism.
To many, his approach is unorthodox, even disruptive, but for Trump, it is vindicated by one straightforward conviction: he is achieving the outcomes he desires.
Ahead of Trump’s speech, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sent him a letter expressing regret over their contentious meeting the previous Friday, in what amounted to an implicit apology. He emphasized, “My team and I stand ready to work under President
Trump’s strong leadership to achieve a lasting peace.”
Regarding the agreement on rare minerals, Zelenskyy stated, “Ukraine is ready to sign it at any time and in any convenient format.”
European leaders, for their part, breathed a cautious sigh of relief when Trump, in his address to Congress, expressed appreciation for Zelenskyy’s conciliatory words. Behind the scenes, France and Britain
have been engaged in intensive diplomatic efforts to mend the widening transatlantic rift and prevent further deterioration, particularly in light of Trump’s decision to suspend all military aid to Ukraine.
The US administration views Zelenskyy’s reluctance to make key concessions for ending the war with Russia as a lack of seriousness, prompting this
dramatic policy shift.
In a bid to avert further crisis, European leaders are now pushing for an urgent meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy—one that could result in the signing of the rare earths agreement and the restoration of US military assistance to Kyiv.
They understand all too well that without American support, Ukraine’s ability to maintain its defensive lines would crumble within weeks.
Yet this momentary relief is unlikely to last. If this week’s events have proven anything, it is that Ukraine—and, by extension, Europe—hold few bargaining chips. As Trump has repeatedly asserted, they have no cards.
Thus, the road ahead remains fraught with challenges, and after the events of the past few days, Trump and his team believe they hold all the leverage.
According to White House sources, the US administration wants to improve the terms of the rare earth agreement.
A person familiar with the US-Ukraine talks told CBS News that the Republican leader is now awaiting a “bigger and better deal.”
More alarming, however, is the shifting geopolitical dynamic: both Ukraine and Europe now find themselves dealing with a US administration determined to pursue its vision with minimal coordination with transatlantic allies.
As a result, neither Kyiv nor European capitals are likely to play a meaningful role in the ongoing US-Russia negotiations aimed at laying the groundwork for a broader political settlement.
Trust between Washington and Kyiv appears increasingly fragile—especially after the US reportedly urged Britain not to share American intelligence with Ukraine.
For Zelenskyy, the road ahead will be particularly perilous as political negotiations begin. Moscow’s demands remain unpalatable: Ukrainian recognition of Russian sovereignty over currently occupied territories, a
commitment to neutrality and non-accession to NATO, European security arrangements that address Russian concerns, and the so-called “demilitarization and denazification” of Ukraine.
These terms are not only difficult for Zelenskyy to accept but also for the nationalist hardliners who bolster his government. Should he refuse to concede, his hold on power could become increasingly tenuous, leaving European leaders in an exceedingly difficult position.
Meanwhile, voices in Washington calling for a change in Ukrainian leadership are growing louder. Some, regardless of Zelenskyy’s rhetoric or recent shifts in tone, argue that he can no longer be trusted and must
be replaced.
Among the latest to echo this sentiment is Steve Bannon, a key advisor during Trump’s first term.
These swift developments have confronted Europe with a reality it has yet to fully grasp: its role in American strategy has become largely peripheral as the Trump administration pursues new priorities and a radically different vision of the world.
If there is any consolation, it lies in the fact that Trump’s view of Europe’s strategic importance became evident in the early months of his presidency.
This, at the very least, offers Europe a window of opportunity—should it seize the moment—to reassess its approach and safeguard its interests.
The catalyst for this upheaval was a fiery and acrimonious confrontation between the US and Ukrainian presidents at the White House on Friday, marked by sharp exchanges, an angry tone, and veiled
accusations.
During the meeting with Trump, Zelenskyy asserted that the rare earths agreement was insufficient to guarantee Ukraine’s security. He demanded explicit security assurances from Washington and implicitly accused the Trump administration of naivety for placing trust in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s promises.
In response, Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance rebuked Zelenskyy for his lack of gratitude toward Washington, accusing him of disregarding US support and recklessly pushing the world toward a third global war by obstinately rejecting the peace process. The escalating tensions led to the abrupt cancellation of both the joint press conference and the signing of the rare earths agreement.
Shortly thereafter, US officials instructed Zelenskyy and his delegation to leave the White House.
Trump has stipulated strict conditions for Zelenskyy’s return to Washington to finalize the agreement, chief among them a public apology and an unequivocal declaration of willingness to pursue a political settlement with Russia. Senior US officials, led by Trump himself, have issued stark warnings: unless Zelenskyy shifts his stance, his tenure may be short-lived, as Washington explores alternative leadership in Ukraine willing to embrace peace.
In response to this volatile and rapidly evolving crisis, Europe has moved swiftly to shore up political and military support for Zelenskyy. London hosted a high-profile summit on Sunday, bringing together numerous European leaders in a bid to contain the crisis. Yet, the gathering only exposed deep fractures within the continent, with several leaders boycotting the event. The summit also failed to produce a unified strategy, as a British-French rift emerged over proposals for a one-month ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine and the freezing of Russian sovereign assets in Europe to fund Ukrainian military expenditures.
Despite several European leaders' pledges to bolster Kyiv's military and economic aid, Washington’s abrupt withdrawal of support—accounting for nearly half of Ukraine’s total aid—will leave a void that Europe cannot readily fill. Lacking the industrial-scale military production capabilities of the United States, European nations will struggle to compensate for this shortfall, significantly weakening Ukraine’s ability to sustain its military campaign.
More troubling still is the widening gulf between the United States and its European allies. Washington’s pivot away from military confrontation in favour of a negotiated settlement with Moscow has created the deepest rift in transatlantic relations since World War II. As discord persists over how to end the Russian-Ukrainian war, the prospect of the US disengaging from Europe's security framework looms large—threatening to reshape the global order and realign the balance of power in ways not seen in decades.
What also renders this crisis particularly perilous is the profound failure of European leaders to accurately discern the Trump administration’s stance on the Russo-Ukrainian conflict and to craft a cohesive strategy capable of averting the escalation that has since unfolded.
European policymakers operated under the assumption that they could incrementally draw Trump toward a position aligned with their own, neglecting to account for his fundamentally divergent perspective on the war—its origins, its trajectory, and America’s role within it.
This miscalculation underscores a critical lapse in diplomatic foresight, as they underestimated the chasm between their vision and that of an administration guided by an entirely distinct worldview.
The situation risks further deterioration if the widening rift between America and its European allies—and indeed, among the Europeans themselves—remains unresolved.
Behind closed doors, intense discussions are undoubtedly underway between European capitals and Washington, aimed at defusing the crisis and preventing it from spiralling further out of control. London, for its part, is making concerted efforts to bridge the divide between Trump and Zelenskyy, though hopes for an immediate breakthrough remain dim given the profound differences separating Washington and London.
Following the White House’s announcement suspending all forms of aid to Ukraine, 10 Downing Street reaffirmed that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer would steadfastly maintain his commitment to supporting Kyiv—politically, economically, and militarily—ensuring that Ukraine enters any negotiations with Russia from a position of strength. This stance stands in stark contrast to the approach favoured by Trump and his administration, who argue that Zelenskyy is leveraging generous American and European support to prolong the war, refusing to seek an end to the conflict except on his terms.
British sources have interpreted Trump’s decision to halt aid to Ukraine as a “deliberate humiliation” of Starmer, whose unwavering support for Kyiv is viewed by some in Washington as “unhelpful” in achieving a swift and politically viable resolution to the war.
Across Europe, a sense of anger and disbelief has taken hold in response to the Trump administration’s radical shift and its decision to halt military aid to Ukraine, which was made without consulting any of Washington's European allies.
Just hours before the announcement, British Prime Minister had confidently assured Parliament, “I have not seen reports of the United States withdrawing support for Ukraine, and, as I understand it, that is not its position.”
In a decisive response to Washington, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced on Tuesday in Brussels that the European Union plans to invest approximately 800 billion euros to bolster the European defence industry and enhance the military capabilities of the alliance.
European leaders are also scheduled to convene in Brussels next Thursday to discuss the Russia-Ukraine war. However, it was notable that the UK government confirmed on Tuesday that Starmer would not attend the meeting, despite having received an invitation.
Despite efforts to project unity, the internal fissures among European nations are increasingly apparent. Differences in how they approach the unprecedented strain in transatlantic relations and their varying levels of commitment to supporting Kyiv reveal a continent struggling to reconcile its divergent priorities.
Officials within the Trump administration have asserted that they have laid out their vision for a settlement to end the war, challenging Europeans and Ukrainians to present their proposals if they differ. However, the recent London summit failed to produce a unified vision, instead exposing stark disagreements—particularly between London and Paris—over the prospect of a month-long ceasefire.
The idea, initially proposed by French President Emmanuel Macron, calls for a temporary halt to air and sea attacks, as well as strikes on energy infrastructure, while excluding ground combat along the eastern frontline. Macron acknowledged the complexities of verifying such a truce, especially along the volatile frontlines, and emphasized that “there will be no European troops on Ukrainian soil in the coming weeks.”
While some European voices have cautiously entertained the idea, it has yet to gain broad support. British officials were quick to distance themselves from any suggestion of a coordinated initiative. The UK Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard clarified that “no agreement” had been reached with France on the proposal, stressing that “a number of different options” remain under private discussion.
Moreover, European Council President António Costa has also dismissed calls for an unconditional ceasefire, arguing that peace without defence is an illusion. “What we want is a just and lasting peace,” Costa stated, warning that a mere truce could provide Russia with the opportunity to regroup and return even stronger.
Tensions also have flared between the UK and France over a contentious proposal to seize $350 billion in frozen Russian assets and allocate them for purchasing US defence equipment—an effort to deepen America's commitment to European security.
The UK, backed by Ukraine and several Eastern European nations, strongly advocates for the plan. However, Macron, aligning with Germany and others, opposes the move, warning that it would violate the principle of sovereign asset immunity and deter foreign investment in the eurozone, particularly from key players such as China and Saudi Arabia.
Macron is also determined to reduce Europe's dependence on US weaponry, arguing that the funds should instead be used to bolster the continent’s defence industry. France has grown increasingly frustrated that, since the outbreak of war, EU nations have sourced only 22% of their military equipment from within Europe, with the bulk of orders directed to American manufacturers.
The lack of consensus, however, extends far beyond the UK and France. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán openly criticized the London summit, accusing European leaders of prolonging the war rather than pursuing peace. Orbán, along with Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico—both of whom maintain close ties with Russia—has called for an immediate ceasefire. Fico has even hinted at the possibility of vetoing European Council conclusions related to Ukraine.
While Ukrainian politicians and lawmakers have sharply criticized the Trump administration for halting military aid to their country, the Kremlin welcomed the US decision and called for lifting sanctions on Moscow.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has also suggested that divisions are emerging among Western nations.
“We see that the so-called collective West is becoming less collective. Fragmentation has begun, with different countries and groups of countries adopting more nuanced positions,” he argued.
According to American sources, the Trump administration is adopting an increasingly uncompromising stance toward Zelenskyy.
Even figures within the administration once regarded as moderates, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, now align with Trump and Vice President Vance in viewing Zelenskyy as part of the problem rather than the solution.
In Washington, calls are growing—including from close allies like Senator Lindsey Graham —for the Ukrainian president to step aside and make way for leaders more willing to pursue a negotiated political settlement.
In a significant shift, the US administration has begun exploring the possibility of easing certain sanctions on Russia, a move designed to pave the way for an upcoming summit between Trump and Putin. Preparations for this meeting have intensified in recent days, signalling Washington’s resolve to normalize relations with Moscow—despite European objections.
The divide between the United States and its European allies is widening at an alarming pace. Washington has increasingly asserted that Ukraine’s war is unwinnable and is urging Europe to adopt a pragmatic resolution: securing what remains of Ukraine, forging peace with Russia, ending the bloodshed, and leveraging American support for reconstruction. Europe, however, remains deeply sceptical about the viability of this approach.
As a result, Europe now faces a stark choice: either adapt to America’s shifting stance or resist a geopolitical realignment that may ultimately be beyond its control.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 6 March, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: