PRESIDENT Donald Trump blamed Kyiv for starting the war with Russia and called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a ‘dictator.’
Washington indicated readiness to normalize diplomatic relations with Moscow, proposed Russia back into the G7, and opposed reference to ‘Russian aggression.’
Besides, Vice President Vance accused the Europeans of retreating from the fundamental values they shared with the Americans.
He said, “In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat.
If you are running in fear of your voters, there is nothing America can do for you.”
These statements and an inconclusive meeting between Trump and Zelensky in the White House on February 28, 2025, shook the transatlantic foundation.
President Trump’s 90-minute call to President Vladimir Putin on February 12, 205, followed by the meeting between the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Riyadh and the U.S. high-up’s speeches at the 2025 Munich Security Conference manifest that the Trump administration is drifting from its NATO allies and inching closer to Moscow over the end of the three years war between Russia and Ukraine.
This shift in alliances is soothing for the Russians, disturbing for the Europeans and has potential implications for the Chinese, whose geopolitical position may be affected by the changing dynamics.
President Trump expressed his desire to meet President Xi to convince him to cut defence spending and involve China in trilateral nuclear arms control; he mums the word on his Indo-Pacific strategy. However, he distanced himself from Ukraine by telling Zelensky, “Right now, you are not in a very good position. You don’t have the cards right now.” He accused Zelensky of “gambling with the lives of millions of people.” He added, “You’re gambling with World War III and what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country.” Trump administration’s Russia policy, Europeans omission in the Riyadh meeting and Mr. Vance’s accusation at the Munich Security Conference manifest that transatlantic security architecture is no longer the first preoccupation of Washington policymakers. The European leaders viewed these unexpected disclosers as humiliating and alarming. They are not prepared to accept the exclusion of Ukraine and European allies by the U.S. from the negotiations about Ukraine’s future. The EU’s chief diplomat, Kaja Kallas, labelled these U.S. moves “appeasement.” He sounds correct because the U.S. prepared to end the Ukraine war on Russia’s terms, i.e., accepting the Russian annexation of Crimea and its other Ukrainian territorial claims. However, the Europeans must realize that in the contemporary multipolar world, they remain too dependent on U.S. military capabilities and seem unable to ensure their security.
Since 2007, President Putin has questioned NATO’s expansion and the transatlantic security architecture. The Kremlin captured two of Georgia’s provinces in reaction to 2008 NATO’s Bucharest Summit decision to grant Georgia and Ukraine membership of the alliance. Ironically, the U.S. does not favour Ukraine’s inclusion in the NATO alliance today. The U.S. Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth, said, “The United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.” It is shocking for the Europeans, who announced that Ukraine was on an “irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration” in the declaration of the 2024 NATO Summit held on July 10, 2024, in Washington.
President Zelensky pointed out in his 2025 Munich Security Conference speech that “decades of the old relationship between Europe and America are ending.” Therefore, Europe became self-sufficient by creating its Armed Forces for defence. The key European leaders gathered for an informal meeting in Paris from February 17 to 19, 2025, to contemplate a cohesive and autonomous defence policy. However, they failed to chalk out a quick fix to an increasingly dangerous regional security landscape. Russia poses an existential threat to European security because Europe currently does not have plans and a military force that can operate at high readiness levels and with the requisite technical, operational and strategic agility necessary for autonomous defence.
President Trump has strived to secure a “$500 billion worth” rare earth metals deal from Ukraine as compensation for the wartime aid it received under Joe Biden since February 2022.However, President Zelensky has refused to sign a minerals deal with the United States to date. The controversy over the deal is one of the main controversies between Washington and Kyiv. Consequently, on February 22, 2025, the U.S. proposed a United Nations resolution on the Ukraine conflict that omitted any mention of Kiev’s territory occupied by Russia. This move, along with the U.S.’s vote against a United Nations General Assembly resolution that condemned Russian aggression in Ukraine and called for Russian-occupied territory to be returned to Kyiv on February 24, 2025, has raised questions about the U.S.’s role in the Ukraine conflict.
President Trump is convinced that ending U.S. diplomatic, financial and material support to Ukraine could persuade Kyiv to end the war. Therefore, he snubbed his Ukrainian counterpart by telling him he had no options and asked him to leave the White House and return when he would be ready for peace. It was a clear indication of the U.S. departing from its commitment to defend Ukraine by continue providing weapons and finances. Precisely, Washington abandoning Kyiv and the subsequent clash between Trump and Zelensky in the Oval Office necessitated Europe to increase defence cooperation.
—The writer is Prof at the School of Politics and IR, Quaid-i-Azam University.
