UKRAINIAN President Zelenskyy’s meeting with the US President Donald Trump and the Vice President JD Vance in the White House on 28 February 2025, proved to be the watershed event for reshaping US’s foreign policy options.
Critical analysis of the unprecedented and disastrous outcome of the meeting reveals interesting facts.
On one hand, President Trump under the pressure of his electioneering slogans to end Gaza and Ukrainian wars, had successfully negotiated the Hamas-IDF ceasefire and desperately wanted an earliest possible end to the Ukrainian crisis as well.
European nations, especially Ukraine, were skeptical of the U.S.
-Russia meeting in Riyadh on 18 February 2025, which excluded European leaders.
The talks focused on improving U.S.
-Russia relations and negotiating an end to the Ukraine war.
Despite being principal stakeholders, European leaders felt sidelined.
Adding to their concerns, President Trump had demanded NATO allies increase their defense spending from 2% to 5% of GDP, signaling a shift in U.S. policy.
This move intensified European unease over America’s commitment to NATO, further straining transatlantic ties amid growing geopolitical uncertainties.
Moreover, there have been loud thoughts amongst the strategic community of the USA that ever since the formation of NATO, USA has been the major contributor and spending American taxpayers’ money to make up resources and spearhead operations of NATO all across the world.
They are of the view that such a lopsided spending of money on one hand, afforded European partners to concentrate more towards socio-economic and infrastructural development of their countries while on the other hand, it had adverse effects on the socio-economic well-being of the American public.
Remarkably, it can also be argued that the arrangement also immensely benefited the US military industrial complex in the research, innovation and production of military hardware domains.
Interestingly, President Trump strongly opposed NATO’s open-door policy, which expanded the alliance from 12 members in 1949 to 32 in 2024.
He dismissed Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, stating it was never a likely member and that its bid contributed to the war.
His stance aligned with Russia’s claim that NATO expansion threatened its sovereignty, potentially encouraging future Russian actions.
Trump also questioned the effectiveness of sanctions on Russia, arguing that European nations had failed to enforce them while still benefiting from Russian energy imports.
His position further strained transatlantic ties and fueled concerns over NATO’s future.
Close observation of the reaction by various leaders can help to reckon the likely future of global geopolitics.
Interestingly, almost all the European leaders rallied behind the Ukrainian President.
French President Macron issued a warning for Europe that it has to remain ready in case the United States does not “remain by our side” in the Ukraine-Russia war.
While taking the debate to the non-conventional domain, he went on to state that ‘France will consider extending the protection of its nuclear arsenal to its allies”, which itself is a dangerous proposition.
Similarly, European Commission President Ursula called it a “watershed moment” for Europe.
At an extraordinary meeting of the European Council in Brussels, the EU leaders rushed to agree to spend USD 862 billion to ensure Europe’s security.
Both Russia and China have expressed serious concerns about Europe’s stance.
Since taking office, President Trump has fundamentally changed transatlantic relations, suspended all military aid and intelligence sharing to Kyiv and cast doubts about application of Article 5 of collective defence.
Recently, President Trump has stated that the US may abandon its commitments to the security alliance (NATO) as the member countries were not spending enough on defense.
He went on to say that “I think it’s common sense, if they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them”.
Fact of the matter is that owing to the largest US contributions in funds, technological superiority, multi-domain real time intelligence gathering, superior and safe communication networks, qualitative military hardware, ability of mass production, strategic airlift and outreach, robust and fail-safe command and control system, space and cyberspace capabilities and reliable nuclear triad, undoubtedly makes USA a bedrock of the Western security architecture.
Without the US presence, NATO would be reduced to sub-optimal intra-regional organization and far easier to counter.
Although non-US Western organization (termed as the European Defence Union by the European Commission President Ursala in July, 2024) would still have two nuclear states, its geopolitical, geo-economic and geostrategic foot-print would be marginalized as it would not have any of the global powers.
Present-day America faces a $35 trillion debt, rising by $1 trillion every 100 days against a $29 trillion GDP.
President Trump has adopted a transactional approach even with long-time Western allies, imposing higher tariffs and shifting the burden of maintaining relationships onto them.
His “America First” and “Make America Great Again” policies have led to the U.S. withdrawing from international organizations such as the WHO, UN Human Rights Council, UNESCO, UNRWA, and the Paris Climate Agreement, citing scrutiny.
Trump’s ultimatum to NATO members—either contribute billions or prepare to defend themselves—has raised significant concerns about NATO’s future.
These actions signal the end of the post-World War II world order, with a new global order taking shape.
This shift could lead to the formation of new alliances, forcing countries to reassess their priorities and realign themselves with emerging global partners.
—The author is a retired Air Officer from the PAF and currently serving at the DHA Suffa University (DSU), Karachi].
