In the Wake of the Trump-Zelensky Conflict, Europe Must Consider Its Security Alternatives
The public confrontation between US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office on Friday will be remembered as one of the most calamitous political press events in recent history.
It appeared as a blatant ambush, and Mr. Zelensky took the bait, countering Mr. Vance’s claim that Ukraine now required “diplomacy.”
The body language—raised hands from Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance—spoke volumes: they want no part in continuing to assist Ukraine in its fight against the war initiated by Russia.
Mr. Trump also made it known that he has no preferred side in the conflict.
This must have come as a shock to Ukraine’s president, who had previously been warmly received by former US president Joe Biden in the same setting.
In just over two weeks, Mr. Trump and his vice president have overturned the previous Biden administration’s robust support for Ukraine and cast doubt on America’s longstanding commitment to Europe.
One can only speculate about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s reaction, now empowered by the Trump administration’s warming ties with Kremlin officials.
The verbal clash on Friday also reveals the significant divide that has appeared between Europe and the US regarding methods to conclude the war in Ukraine.
In response to the extraordinary scene in the Oval Office, European leaders rallied in support of Mr. Zelensky, while Mr. Trump subsequently criticized the Ukrainian president on his Truth Social platform.
Later in London, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer will convene over a dozen European leaders, including Mr. Zelensky, at a summit to deliberate on the future of European security and the situation in Ukraine.
This was intended to be an opportunity for Mr. Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron to brief their fellow leaders on their discussions with Mr. Trump in Washington earlier in the week.
Keir Starmer visited Donald Trump in the White House earlier this week.
However, Friday’s confrontation at the White House will likely overshadow the agenda and redirect the conversation on how Europe and Ukraine can persuade the US to re-engage as a security guarantor in any peace deal with Russia.
Mr. Trump, who was born one year after World War II ended, seems to bear little of the transatlantic loyalties that informed the European policies of the 13 other American presidents since 1945.
That’s not to say this second Trump administration will completely abandon Europe.
Nearly 80 years following the conclusion of World War II, America’s military still operates more than 30 bases throughout Europe, from Britain to Bulgaria, housing over 60,000 personnel.
Nonetheless, the incoming US administration’s abrupt rapprochement with Russia—beginning with the Trump-Putin phone call that blindsided both Europeans and Ukrainians, followed by initial discussions with senior Russian officials regarding the war’s conclusion—has prompted European governments into action over the past fortnight.
Most European NATO members are now spending over 2% of GDP on defense, successfully meeting the target set by the alliance.
For years, many member countries, including France and Germany, had not met that target, relying instead on the US to uphold the alliance.
This second Trump administration has made it clear that it expects European nations to increase their defense spending and take the lead in maintaining peace in Ukraine.
“It’s just not fair or sustainable,” described US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in an interview with Fox News this week regarding the disproportionate role the US has played in funding NATO.
However, that is on the brink of changing.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the US’ role in NATO is “not fair or sustainable.”
Since the re-engagement with Russia, European leaders have come to realize they must prepare for a scenario in which the continent might need to defend itself in the future.
Discussions commenced last week when Mr. Macron convened an emergency summit to determine how to respond to the American-Russian dialogue aimed at ending the war and to address the future of European defense.
The upcoming summit in London is a follow-up to that first meeting.
Two key security challenges facing the continent are at stake, both deeply connected.
The first is the destiny of Ukraine: ensuring Kyiv achieves a fair peace agreement and that Europe is involved in any peace negotiations to conclude the war.
The cost for that involvement in what now appears to be US-brokered peace talks is that European nations may need to assume a central role in any security guarantee for Ukraine by deploying their soldiers as peacekeepers following any ceasefire agreement.
A proposal is emerging for the likely structure of a peace monitoring or “reassurance force,” potentially involving up to 30,000 European soldiers.
Unsurprisingly, this plan has been primarily driven by the two nations that have spearheaded this European awakening: France and the UK, the only nuclear powers in Europe.
French President Emmanuel Macron with US President Donald Trump last month.
Their leaders have expressed readiness to commit troops to a peace monitoring operation in Ukraine.
Denmark, Sweden, and Lithuania have also shown interest in contributing forces.
Others, like Germany and Poland, will require more persuasion.
According to The Telegraph, the “reassurance force” would involve European troops stationed well behind the front lines around the eastern cities of Poltava, Dnipro, and Kryvyi Rih.
“It will be a monitoring mission, primarily using technical sensors and instruments like drones,” stated Mykhailo Samus, a senior Ukrainian defense analyst, to RTÉ News.
The British-French plan anticipates that the mission would be bolstered by an American “backstop” in the form of US fighter jets based in Poland and Romania, ready to react if Russia violates the ceasefire or threatens European ground troops.
Yet, the willingness of the Trump administration to provide a security guarantee for Ukraine hangs in the balance after the events of Friday in the Oval Office.
Ukrainian and Russian forces would still hold their ceasefire positions along the frozen front lines, which now seems to be a weak point in the strategy.
Not placing a peacekeeping force between the two armies—despite the inherent risks—will leave much to chance.
Dilemma
If Russia were to breach the ceasefire agreement, the European “reassurance force” would then face a dilemma on how to respond, as would the US if it agrees to provide the security “backstop” that Ukraine and Europe seek.
“The issue for Trump is that he may believe Putin’s assurance that he won’t attack Ukrainian forces,” remarked Mr. Samus, director of the New Geopolitics Research Network, a think tank in Kyiv.
“That’s why French and UK forces might only monitor the situation but be unprepared to engage. So, this poses a very challenging task for Trump.”
It is understood that Mr. Starmer was meant to discuss the plan for the European “reassurance force” with Mr. Trump during their meeting in Washington on Thursday.
However, no information arose from the meeting regarding whether the US would extend a security guarantee to the force, which does not bode well.
Without that American “backstop,” the likelihood of deterring Russia would decrease significantly, leaving European troops in Ukraine—stationed at critical Ukrainian infrastructure sites—more vulnerable to potential Russian provocations.
Despite the fallout in Washington on Friday, Ukraine continues to seek that US security guarantee—regardless of the mineral deal—to deter Russia from re-escalating its war in the near future.
Friday’s confrontation has cast doubt on American support for Ukraine.
Of course, Russia has continued to oppose the deployment of European soldiers as peacekeepers to Ukraine, despite Mr. Trump asserting that Russian President Vladimir Putin endorsed the notion.
Consequently, the proposition of establishing a European “reassurance force” will be one of the first matters to discuss when talks finally commence.
Taoiseach Micheál Martin has stated that Ireland could provide peacekeepers to Ukraine if required under a UN-mandated ceasefire agreement.
The second and longer-term security challenge facing Europe lies in the need to establish an independent European defense architecture.
European leaders will look at Russia and realize that their nations cannot compete with the Kremlin’s annual military expenditure of 9% of GDP.
Mr. Macron has consistently advocated for Europe to possess greater autonomy from the US regarding defense.
The UK is also becoming more aligned with this idea, though it will seek to preserve its “special relationship” with the US. Its nuclear doctrine remains fully integrated with that of the US.
Germany, under Chancellor Olaf Scholz, has pursued a policy of providing essential armaments to Ukraine in concert with the US or only after the Biden administration has acted.
‘Independence from the USA’
That approach is expected to shift with the appointment of the next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, leader of the center-right CDU-CSU alliance.
While he is a devoted transatlanticist, Mr. Merz has stated that his primary focus is ensuring European security and achieving “independence from the USA.”
These were bold declarations from a German leader aiming for Europe to develop its own independent defense capacity.
He has also sought discussions with the UK and France on whether their nuclear security could extend to Germany.
“Both Merz and Scholz are strong supporters of Ukraine and advocate for a more robust EU-led security architecture,” noted Sebastian Bollien, an analyst at the German Federal Academy for Security Policy, to RTÉ News.
“A key distinction is that Merz appears more in tune with the French view regarding the potential for a US withdrawal from Europe,” he added.
To achieve the sort of security independence from the US that Mr. Merz refers to, Europe will need to invest significantly.
The European Commission estimates that the EU must allocate at least €500 billion to defense over the next decade.
An immediate concern for Europe is the urgency to rearm, as many countries have dispatched their most modern armaments (as well as outdated equipment) to Ukraine.
EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
EU governments do not possess such spare funds, and substantial tax hikes are not a feasible option for many. Thus, borrowing is likely the only viable route.
Currently, the European Investment Bank (EIB) is prohibited from financing the production of weapons, military hardware, or ammunition.
However, this could soon change given the pressing demand for increased defense expenditure.
Nineteen EU member nations, including France and Germany, recently urged the EIB to augment its lending for Europe’s defense sector.
An initial discussion on various funding mechanisms may occur at next Thursday’s extraordinary EU leaders summit focused on defense and Ukraine.
Mr. Zelensky has also been invited to this summit by António Costa, President of the European Council, underscoring that the EU views Ukraine’s future as intertwined with its long-term security strategies.
Europe, as a collective, acknowledges that the time has come to become more independent from the US concerning defense.
Yet, the prospect of foregoing a US security guarantee altogether—whether to uphold a future peace agreement in Ukraine or to shield the continent from Russian threats—is still a situation European leaders wish to avoid.
In the aftermath of Friday’s unprecedented confrontation at the White House, European leaders now confront the delicate challenge of sustaining support for Mr. Zelensky and Ukraine without antagonizing the Trump administration to the point of alienating Europe entirely.
“The question that looms is what role the US envisions for itself in Europe’s defense architecture,” concluded Mr. Bollien.
