This week’s meeting in Budapest starkly highlighted the unease spreading across Europe as Donald Trump secured victory in the US.The timing and setting were significant.
The host, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, uniquely among EU leaders, has embraced Trump’s controversial political style. He reveled in the attention, proclaiming Trump’s victory a “victory for world peace” and asserting that it would shift Europe’s stance on Ukraine.
Orban’s satisfaction was amplified by the collapse of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition in Germany, while France finds itself in its own dysfunction, with President Macron struggling to present European leadership.
Nevertheless, there was a pressing need to manage the narrative before Trump assumes office.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban claimed Trump’s victory as a ‘victory for world peace.’
The narrative being pushed is that a robust transatlantic relationship—both economically and in terms of security—is beneficial for the US president-elect, especially regarding Ukraine.
Both European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte indicated they had previously worked well with Trump, with Rutte praising him for successfully urging NATO members to increase defense spending beyond the 2% of GDP benchmark (largely driven by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine).
Despite the diplomatic optimism, genuine concerns linger over what Trump 2.0 might entail.
The Republican has proposed 10% tariffs on European exports and threatened to withdraw support from Ukraine.
Furthermore, he might consider lifting sanctions against the Kremlin and stepping away from NATO, potentially leaving Ukraine defenseless against Russia’s aerial assaults and advancing troops.
It is not an ideal time for the EU to face tariffs, especially with the risk of repercussions for trade with China (if Trump imposes 60% tariffs on China, it could trigger a surge of Chinese exports into Europe) or a potential Russian takeover of Ukraine (leading to a substantial influx of Ukrainian refugees into Europe).
Ursula von der Leyen emphasized the importance of a transatlantic partnership.
The EU institutions are also undergoing transformation.
Von der Leyen is concluding her initial mandate, and the soon-to-be commissioners are still awaiting the European Parliament’s approval.
Goldman Sachs has already revised its Eurozone growth forecast for 2025 down from 1.1% to 0.8%, based solely on limited tariffs, not the 10% Trump could impose.
Before the US elections, the EU was grappling with stagnant growth and a lack of competitiveness.
Thus, we find ourselves in a transitional period filled with apprehension.
The concept of Europe standing united, yet alone, floated through the press conferences in Budapest.
“We’ve demonstrated that Europe can take responsibility by standing together,” Von der Leyen remarked.
“By uniting, we overcame the economic fallout of the pandemic. We have shown resilience in the severe energy crisis triggered by Russia’s war in Ukraine.”
Before departing to dissolve the Dáil, Taoiseach Simon Harris stressed that Europe’s “strategic autonomy” is now paramount:
“Controlling what we can manage here in Europe is essential. No other region of the world is obligated to sustain us,” the Taoiseach added.
A crucial aspect of what Europe seeks to control is ensuring Ukraine does not succumb to Russian domination.
However, Orban cautioned that Trump’s win implies Europe may not support Ukraine as it has in the past.
“The Americans will withdraw from this war,” he stated to Hungarian state radio.
The war in Ukraine will be central in EU-US discussions.
No one, not least Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, misunderstands what Orban’s and the Russian leader’s version of “peace” entails.
Ukrainian leader Zelensky told reporters in Budapest that talks of a ceasefire were “dangerous” and “irresponsible,” offering no assurances for Ukraine’s security.
“What’s next?” he inquired, referencing the North Korean troops assisting Russia in targeting civilians on European soil.
“Should Europe seek favor from [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Un, hoping he too will leave Europe in peace?”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky remarked that ceasefire talks were ‘dangerous’ and ‘irresponsible.’
Europe faces a critical moment, having to compensate for the potential withdrawal of US military support for Ukraine amid rising right-wing sympathies for Russia (Orban included) and a precarious economic landscape.
Nonetheless, Belgian Prime Minister Alexander de Croo contested the belief that Europe is powerless without a US defense shield.
“More than half of the military support for Ukraine is already being provided by European nations, so the notion that Ukraine can only defend itself with American assistance is inaccurate,” he stated.
“Whether we need to increase support or maintain a collective effort will need to be determined. We have two months to prepare.”
Even if Trump’s more extreme campaign promises do not come to fruition and if this serves as a wake-up call for Europe to bolster defense capabilities, as envisioned by leaders like Poland’s Donald Tusk, the sober conclusion is that the EU will face challenges.
“The prospect of a quicker US pivot away from Europe in terms of security is daunting, even for those who welcome greater European strategic autonomy,” notes Ian Lesser, distinguished fellow at the German Marshall Fund.
“However, this objective remains predominantly aspirational. Europe’s capacity to offset shifts in the American defense posture and credibility is unlikely to materialize for many years.”
Donald Trump has long expressed admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
With Russia continuing to gain ground in Ukraine, discussions regarding Kyiv softening its maximalist war goals of expelling all Russian troops are emerging, even outside of Trump-related circles.
“[Washington] should still define victory as Kyiv remaining sovereign and independent, free to join any alliances and associations it desires,” asserts Richard N. Haass, former US envoy to Northern Ireland and a prominent figure in American foreign policy, in Foreign Affairs.
“However, it should abandon the notion that, to succeed, Kyiv needs to reclaim all its territory. As the United States and its allies continue arming Ukraine, they must take the uncomfortable step of encouraging Kyiv to engage in negotiations with the Kremlin—and provide a clear framework on how to do so.”
Read more: Key takeaways from the US presidential election Why Ireland should be concerned about Trump 2.0
This indicates that Trump might have the opportunity to push Ukraine into making significant compromises.
The US president-elect seems to harbor a particular disdain for Ukraine, viewing the country’s war effort as a burden on US finances and military resources, believing Europeans should handle—and pay for—the issue themselves.
Trump has consistently praised Putin and has previously suggested he could broker a deal with the Russian leader to end the war within 24 hours.
His Vice-President-elect JD Vance has also made his indifference towards Ukraine’s future clear.
Despite this, various factions—some hawkish regarding Ukraine, others more traditional—will vie for Trump’s attention.
European leaders were quick to congratulate Trump on his decisive election victory earlier this week.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported on three members of Trump’s team proposing a transactional approach to ending the conflict.
One suggestion involved freezing the conflict along current lines (with Russia still controlling 20% of Ukrainian territory), with Ukraine committing not to join NATO for at least 20 years in exchange for continued US military support.
A 1,300km demilitarized zone would be monitored by European troops.
“We are not sending American men and women to maintain peace in Ukraine,” a Trump aide stated, adding:
“We are not financing it. The Poles, Germans, British, and French should manage it.”
In contrast, Trump’s former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a potential candidate for Defense Secretary, suggested in June that Trump would not abandon Ukraine.
Pompeo advocated for tighter sanctions against Russia, increasing American arms production, strengthening NATO, creating a $500 billion (€467 billion) lend-lease program for Ukraine, and lifting restrictions on the types of weapons the besieged nation could acquire and utilize.
Distinguished Russian historian Stephen Kotkin offers a more cautious perspective:
“It may turn out to be worse for Ukraine, but it may also be better. Making predictions is extremely challenging because Trump is unpredictable, even to himself.”
However, he illustrates that Ukraine cannot engage in negotiations unless Vladimir Putin has a suitable incentive to do so.
“The main issue is that the political pressure on the Putin regime has been insufficient,” Kotkin adds.
Overall, Europe’s options appear limited.
Italy’s far-right Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni could be a key liaison for the European side.
“Europeans will likely assert themselves in Washington to become the president’s primary European ally, potentially at the expense of fellow Europeans,” observes Célia Belin, senior policy fellow with the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).
“They might engage in transactional bargaining—purchasing US weapons in exchange for security guarantees or supporting US policy towards China, hoping the US will reciprocate on Russia—and simply hope for the best.”
Despite this, Belin emphasizes that a transactional relationship is inherently short-term.
Instead, Europe needs to establish a strong, coherent strategy on how to engage with the United States under Trump, for both its economic sustainability and security needs.
However, creating such a cohesive approach is notoriously challenging for the EU.
France has a historical hesitation towards overly close ties while advocating for member states to acquire European (i.e., French) arms rather than American ones.
Additionally, Trump boasts a growing network of populist or far-right allies in Europe, whether in government or opposition, which could undermine a united approach supporting Ukraine.
Read more stories from around Europe.
The US president-elect, for his part, could very well extend his endorsement to European far-right parties, such as the AfD in Germany, which is gearing up for elections next year.
This positions Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, a right-leaning prime minister aligned with the MAGA community yet a strong supporter of Ukraine, as a critical liaison for the European perspective.
“If we are discussing the possibility of peace today,” she told reporters in Budapest, “it is because Ukraine has shown tremendous courage and the West has assisted. We’ll see how the situation unfolds in the upcoming weeks. As long as there is war, Italy will stand with Ukraine.”
The weeks leading to the establishment of the Trump administration will be crucial, particularly concerning developments on the battlefield in Ukraine. With Trump having garnered the backing of a majority of Americans, his actions stemming from that mandate will significantly affect Europeans.
