Ukraine Peace: A Challenge for Transatlantic Relations
On February 19, 2021, President Biden addressed the Virtual Munich Security Conference. He declared, “America is back.”
Last week, President Trump delivered his State of the Union address before Congress. He started his remarks with the following:
“I return to this chamber tonight to report that America’s momentum is back. Our spirit is back. Our pride is back. Our confidence is back…”
Since President Trump refers to his predecessor and his administration’s record only with insulting adjectives, one may ask, “Which America is back?” In the US, depending on which side of the political divide they stand on, some would probably draw attention to the differences between the Biden and Trump administrations, their governance, and their world outlook and claim, “These are two different Americas. Ours is the perfect one.” Others elsewhere may only say, “It is the same America.”
Politico reported last week that four senior members of Donald Trump’s entourage have held secret discussions with some of Kyiv’s top political opponents to President Zelensky, just as Washington aligns with Moscow in seeking to lever the Ukrainian president out of his job.[i]
Beyond that, Washington suspended military aid, intelligence, and satellite imagery sharing with Kyiv. And, according to Reuters, the Trump administration is also planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, thus putting them on a fast track to deportation. Thus, the news in Politico perfectly fit the broad picture.
Last week’s surprise was President Trump’s conflicting remarks expressing understanding about Russian attacks on Ukraine’s infrastructure and raising the possibility of imposing sanctions on Russia for “pounding” Ukraine until a ceasefire and a final peace agreement. Later, he walked back on his remarks. Russia’s pounding of Ukraine when peace talks are on the global agenda is most unfortunate showing that Mr. Putin is to take a very tough position at the negotiation table.
Mr. Trump’s first two months in office have shown that he likes being on the center stage at all times, prefers communicating his messages personally, and enjoys press gaggles. His barrage of messages, remarks, and flip-flops are, more often than not, confusing and require cross-checking and patient analysis. If he were to continue on the same path, Elon Musk and his DOGE might someday consider cutting the jobs of the spokespersons at the White House and across the federal government.
After the disastrous meeting at the White House, the US-Ukraine talks will start in Riyadh this week, but President Zelensky’s future remains uncertain.
On the one hand, his replacement by a leader of Washington’s choice would make it easier for President Trump to push through his peace plan to end the war and please the Kremlin. On the other hand, this would put a distance between Brussels and Kyiv since the EU leaders have mostly stood by President Zelensky for the last three years. Nonetheless, a peace deal may allow them to take a fresh look at their “as long as it takes” commitment to support Kyiv and gain time to make a profound assessment regarding the future of their relations not only with Washington, but also with Moscow, and Beijing, and review Europe’s defense requirements with a long-term strategic vision.
The critical question for any peace agreement remains the “security guarantees”. President Trump’s solution for Ukrainian security is the rare earths deal which would lead to considerable US investment in Ukraine and deter Russia from another onslaught. As the Crisis Group said in a recent statement, President Joe Biden also showed no interest in offering Ukraine a security guarantee.[ii] In response to European calls for a “coalition of the willing”, Moscow has once again said that having NATO countries’ troops in Ukraine is unacceptable. The alternative is continued European military assistance to Ukraine which is again likely to be opposed by Russia.
This leads to two questions with no easy answers. First, “What can Europe offer Ukraine? And second, “What can Europe do for its own defense?”
Last Thursday, the European Council met in Brussels. Their statement on the Russia-Ukraine conflict said that a comprehensive peace agreement needs to be accompanied by robust and credible security guarantees for Ukraine that contribute to deterring future Russian aggression. It also said, “Peace must respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.” [iii]
This confirms what European leaders have said in the past, perhaps with more emphasis since Mr. Trump assumed office. The reference to “respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity” refers to the post-conflict era as everybody knows that Ukraine will lose territory under any deal. Considering that President Putin initially aimed at invading the entire Ukraine, or at least cutting it off from the Black Sea, this would fall short of his vision of a “total victory”.
Regardless of their strong anti-Russia public discourse and accompanying sanctions, many European countries would prefer peace in Ukraine to continued confrontation with Moscow. Unfortunately for Ukraine, with Mr. Zelensky at the helm, Ukraine’s fast-track membership in the EU was a certainty. With a different leader, that may not happen so fast.
Two days before the EU summit, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen presented a plan to mobilize some 800 billion euros for Europe’s defense and help provide “immediate” military support for Ukraine after Washington suspended aid. Money, however, is not the only answer to Europe’s current challenge. Building Europe’s defense, like NATO, would also require leadership, solidarity, and consensus on Europe’s long-term security policy. Waiting for the next American president to declare “America is back” is no longer an option.
The EU summit statement of last week says that in 2025, the EU will provide Ukraine with EUR 30.6 billion, with disbursements from the Ukraine Facility expected to reach EUR 12.5 billion, and EUR 18.1 billion under the G7 ERA (Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration) initiative repaid by the windfall profits stemming from immobilized Russian assets. Using frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine is likely to become a major issue between the EU on one side, Moscow, and possibly Washington on the other.
On February 24, the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, President Putin called President Xi Jinping. The Russian readout of the call said that the two leaders emphasized that the Russian-Chinese political ties are an essential stabilizing factor in global affairs adding, “This relationship is strategic in nature, not subject to political bias, and not aimed against anyone.” It also said, “Vladimir Putin informed his counterpart about the recent Russian-American contacts…” [iv]
The Chinese readout said, “China and Russia are destined to be good neighbors, and our two countries are true friends that share weal and woe, support each other, and pursue common development.”[v]
On Thursday, President Trump who has pledged to make denuclearization a goal in his second term said, “It would be great if everybody got rid of their nuclear weapons”. He added: “I know Russia and us have by far the most. China will have an equal amount within 4-5 years. It would be great if we could all denuclearize because the power of nuclear weapons is crazy.”
Asked about Trump’s comments, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters: “Dialogue between Russia and the U.S. on arms control is necessary, especially concerning strategic stability.” He also said these discussions should also include Europe’s nuclear arsenals, especially after French President Emmanuel Macron this week suggested extending the protection of France’s nuclear weapons to other countries on the continent.[vi] Moscow probably sees such talks as a reaffirmation of its global power status. Starting the process with a trilateral discussion between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing could be Mr. Putin’s first choice.
In brief, beyond Ukraine, Europe has to prepare for strategic stability talks between major powers.
It is clear that once he puts the Ukraine conflict and European defense issues behind him, President Trump will turn to the Indo-Pacific region. However, his priority would be trade more than security. Soon, we may hear that he has sent a message to President Xi Jinping. “Soon” because Mr. Trump wishes to achieve as much as possible without delay and enjoy the rest of his years at the White House as one of America’s greatest leaders.
Last week, “I love Japan. We have a great relationship with Japan. But we have an interesting deal with Japan where we have to protect them but they don’t have to protect us,” Mr. Trump told reporters. The Japanese government must be happy, at least, to have received a warning before the storm.
[i] https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-allies-secret-talks-volodymyr-zelenskyy-opposition-ukraine-elections-yulia-tymoshenko-petro-poroshenko/
[ii] https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/eastern-europe/ukraine-united-states-europe-central-asia/ukraines-most-plausible-security-guarantee?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=email
[iii] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/03/06/european-council-ukraine/?utm_source=brevo&utm_campaign=AUTOMATED%20-%20Alert%20-%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_id=3318
[iv] http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/76325
[v] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xw/zyxw/202502/t20250224_11561392.html
[vi] https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-responding-trump-macron-says-nuclear-dialogue-with-us-is-essential-2025-03-07/