In the Wake of the Trump-Zelensky Controversy, Europe Must Consider Its Security Alternatives
The very public disagreement between US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office on Friday is poised to be remembered as one of the most regrettable political press events in recent history.
The exchange felt like a public ambush, with Mr. Zelensky responding to Mr. Vance’s claim that Ukraine’s current need is “diplomacy.”
The body language, characterized by raised hands from Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance, conveyed a clear message: they want no part in continuing to support Ukraine in its fight against the war initiated by Russia.
This must have been a shocking moment for 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 completely overturned the previous Biden administration’s steadfast support for Ukraine and raised questions about America’s longstanding commitment to Europe.
One can only speculate about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s response, now emboldened by the Trump administration’s reconciliation efforts with Kremlin officials.
Friday’s verbal altercation in the White House also highlights the growing divide between Europe and the US regarding strategies to resolve the war in Ukraine.
In response to the extraordinary scene in the Oval Office, European leaders united to support Mr. Zelensky, while Mr. Trump later criticized the Ukrainian president on his Truth Social platform.
Later in London, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer will gather more than a dozen European leaders, including Mr. Zelensky, at a summit aimed at discussing the future of European security and Ukraine.
This gathering was intended to give Mr. Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron the opportunity to update their fellow leaders on discussions with Mr. Trump in Washington earlier that week.
Keir Starmer visited Donald Trump in the White House earlier this week.
However, the conflict in the White House is now likely to overshadow the agenda and redirect the dialogue on how Europe and Ukraine can regain the United States’ support as a security guarantor for any peace agreement with Russia.
Mr. Trump, born a year after World War II’s conclusion, possesses little of the transatlantic loyalty that influenced the European policies of the 13 American presidents since 1945.
This does not imply that the second Trump administration will completely abandon Europe.
Nearly 80 years after World War II ended, America’s military still operates over 30 bases across Europe, from Britain to Bulgaria, where more than 60,000 personnel are stationed.
Nevertheless, the new administration’s abrupt rapprochement with Russia—beginning with the Trump-Putin phone call that took Europe and Ukraine by surprise—has galvanized European governments into action over the past two weeks.
Most European NATO members are now dedicating over 2% of their GDP to defense, meeting the alliance’s established target.
For years, many of these countries, including France and Germany, failed to reach that benchmark, reliant on the US to uphold the alliance.
This second Trump administration has made it clear that it anticipates European nations to invest more in their own defense and take the lead in ensuring peace in Ukraine.
“It’s just not fair or sustainable,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio remarked about the disproportionate role the US has played in financing NATO for years in an interview with Fox News this week.
However, this situation is on the verge of transformation.
Following the Trump administration’s re-engagement with Russia, European leaders have recognized that they must prepare for a scenario in which the continent may need to defend itself in the future.
Discussions began last week when Mr. Macron convened an emergency summit to formulate a response to American-Russian dialogue concerning the war’s conclusion and to deliberate on the future of European defense.
The forthcoming summit in London will build upon that initial meeting.
Two critical security challenges facing the continent are intricately linked.
The first is the fate of Ukraine: ensuring that Kyiv receives a fair peace deal and that Europe actively participates in any negotiations to end the conflict.
The cost of that involvement—now appearing as US-brokered peace talks—may necessitate European countries playing a central role in providing security guarantees for Ukraine by deploying their own soldiers as peacekeepers post-ceasefire agreement.
A proposal is taking shape for a potential peace monitoring or “reassurance force,” which could include up to 30,000 European troops.
Unsurprisingly, the framework is being developed by the two nations taking the lead in this European awakening: France and the UK, the only European nuclear powers.
French President Emmanuel Macron with US President Donald Trump last month.
Their leaders have expressed a willingness to contribute troops to a peace monitoring mission in Ukraine.
Denmark, Sweden, and Lithuania have also indicated they would contemplate troop contributions.
Others, such as Germany and Poland, will require more persuasion.
The proposed “reassurance force,” as reported by The Telegraph, would involve European troops positioned far behind the front lines around the three eastern cities of Poltava, Dnipro, and Kryvyi Rih.
“It will be a monitoring mission, largely utilizing technical sensors and instruments like drones,” stated Mykhailo Samus, a senior Ukrainian defense analyst, in an interview with RTÉ News.
The British-French plan foresees that the mission would be bolstered by an American “backstop” in the form of US fighter jets stationed in Poland and Romania, ready to act if Russia breaches the ceasefire or threatens European personnel on the ground.
Yet, once again, the extent to which the Trump administration is prepared to offer a security guarantee for Ukraine remains in question following Friday’s incidents in the Oval Office.
Ukrainian and Russian forces would maintain their ceasefire positions along the frozen front lines, which appears to be a vulnerable point in the strategy.
Failing to place a peacekeeping force between the two armies—albeit a risky deployment—will leave many aspects to chance.
If Russia violates the ceasefire agreement, the European “reassurance force” will face a dilemma on how to respond, as will the US should it agree to provide the security “backstop” that Ukraine and Europe are requesting.
“The dilemma for Trump is that he might agree to a commitment that Putin guaranteed him wouldn’t involve an attack on Ukrainian forces,” said Mr. Samus, director of the New Geopolitics Research Network, a think tank in Kyiv.
“That’s why French and UK forces might only be positioned to monitor developments, rather than engage in combat. This poses a substantial challenge for Trump.”
It is understood that Mr. Starmer was meant to discuss the European “reassurance force” plans with Mr. Trump during their meeting in Washington on Thursday.
However, no updates emerged regarding whether the US would offer the force a security guarantee, a development that does not bode well.
Without that American “backstop,” the chances of deterring Russia would significantly decline, leaving European troops in Ukraine—stationed at crucial Ukrainian infrastructure sites—more susceptible to probing actions by Russia.
Despite the fallout from Friday in Washington, Ukraine continues to seek that US security guarantee—regardless of negotiations over mineral deals—to prevent Russia from resuming its war in the near future.
Friday’s altercation has raised doubts about American support for Ukraine.
Of course, Russia has consistently opposed the deployment of European soldiers as peacekeepers to Ukraine, despite Mr. Trump asserting that Russian President Vladimir Putin supported the concept.
Thus, the deployment of a European “reassurance force” will be one of the primary items on the agenda when discussions eventually commence.
Taoiseach Micheál Martin has stated that Ireland could provide peacekeepers to Ukraine if required under a UN-mandated ceasefire agreement.
The second, longer-term security challenge confronting Europe is the necessity of constructing an independent European defense structure.
European leaders will look at Russia and acknowledge that their governments cannot rival the Kremlin’s military spending, which approaches 9% of GDP annually.
Mr. Macron has long advocated for Europe to attain greater autonomy from the US concerning defense.
Britain is also increasingly supportive of this vision, though it is cautious about jeopardizing its “special relationship” with the US, as its nuclear policy is fully integrated with that of Washington.
Germany, under the leadership of Chancellor Olaf Scholz, has pursued a policy of supplying crucial armaments to Ukraine in step with US actions or following the Biden administration’s lead.
This approach is expected to shift under the next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, leader of the center-right CDU-CSU alliance.
Although he identifies as a committed transatlanticist, Mr. Merz has emphasized that his primary focus is on European security and ensuring that Europe “achieves independence from the USA.”
These are bold statements from a German leader eager to see Europe establish its own independent defense capabilities.
He has also proposed dialogue with the UK and France regarding whether their nuclear security provisions could extend to Germany.
“Both Merz and Scholz are strong supporters of Ukraine and advocates for a more robust EU-led security structure,” stated Sebastian Bollien, an analyst at the German Federal Academy for Security Policy, in an interview with RTÉ News.
“One key distinction is that Merz seems to align more closely with the French perspective concerning the potential for a US withdrawal from Europe,” he noted.
To achieve the kind of security autonomy from the US that Mr. Merz envisions, Europe will need significant financial investment.
The European Commission has estimated that the EU will require at least €500 billion over the next decade for defense.
One pressing challenge for Europe is the need to rapidly rearm, as many nations have dispatched their newest armaments (along with older equipment) to Ukraine.
EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
EU governments currently lack the additional funds necessary, and high tax increases are not an appealing option for many. Consequently, borrowing appears to be the only feasible path forward.
At present, the European Investment Bank (EIB) is prohibited from financing the production of weapons, military hardware, or ammunition.
However, this restriction could soon change due to the existing urgency to enhance defense spending.
Nineteen EU member states, including France and Germany, have recently urged the EIB to escalate its lending for Europe’s defense sector.
An initial discussion regarding various funding mechanisms may occur at the upcoming special EU leaders summit on defense and Ukraine next Thursday.
Mr. Zelensky has also received an invitation from António Costa, President of the European Council, to attend the summit—another indication that the EU views Ukraine’s future as integral to the continent’s long-term security strategy.
Overall, Europe recognizes that the moment has arrived to become more self-sufficient from the US regarding defense.
However, the notion of entirely relinquishing a US security guarantee—whether to uphold a forthcoming peace agreement in Ukraine or to protect the continent from Russian threats—remains a prospect that European leaders would prefer to avoid.
In the aftermath of Friday’s unprecedented confrontation in the White House, European leaders are tasked with a delicate balancing act: maintaining support for Mr. Zelensky and Ukraine while avoiding pushing the Trump administration to abandon Europe altogether.
“The pivotal question, in my view, revolves around the future role the US envisions for itself within Europe’s defense framework,” remarked Mr. Bollien.
