Ukraine, Europe, and the World: Hostages of the Grand Bargain Between Washington and Moscow
Some battles go beyond our lines of code
Today, Ukraine finds itself in a critical situation, caught between powerful nations negotiating its fate without ensuring full respect for its sovereignty and international law. This is also about Europe’s future and the balance of international relations.
This article aims to analyze these dynamics and to affirm a clear support for a just and lasting peace, respectful of the fundamental principles of international law and democracy.
The future of Ukraine, Europe, and the world is at stake.
That is why we say: Slava Ukraini! 🇺🇦 🇪🇺
The re-election of Donald Trump as U.S. president in November 2024 has led to a significant shift in the American approach to the war in Ukraine. Since his return to the White House in January 2025, Trump has expressed his intent to quickly end the Ukrainian conflict, breaking away from his predecessor’s unwavering support for Kyiv. His public statements and the direction of his administration illustrate a transactional geopolitical strategy, prioritizing a deal with Moscow—even at the risk of unsettling European allies.
This report examines the official statements made by Trump’s team on Ukraine since early 2025, his stance toward Vladimir Putin’s Russia, the consequences for Europe and NATO, the analysis of the February 28, 2025, meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky, and finally, the potential implications of such a policy for Ukraine’s future, transatlantic relations, and global stability.
- Ambiguity – Official Statements from the Trump Administration on Ukraine (2025)
- Collusion – Trump’s Stance Toward Russia and Relations with Vladimir Putin
- Disillusionment – Implications for Europe and NATO
- Infamy – The February 28, 2025 Meeting Between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky
- Fracture – Possible Consequences for Ukraine, Transatlantic Relations, and Global Stability
- Conclusion: Strategic Fracture and Europe’s Awakening?
Ambiguity – Official Statements from the Trump Administration on Ukraine (2025)
Within the first weeks of his term, Donald Trump made his stance on the war in Ukraine abundantly clear. On February 12, 2025, he publicly stated that he does not consider it “practical” for Ukraine to join NATO and sees it as unlikely that Kyiv will recover all of its territory from Russia (Trump: not practical for Ukraine to join NATO, get back all land - Reuters). On the same day, his newly appointed Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, declared that expecting Ukraine to return to its 2014 borders is unrealistic and ruled out Kyiv’s NATO membership in any peace agreement (Europeans warn US against Ukraine deal ‘behind our backs’ - Reuters). These official statements set the tone: the Trump administration is preparing public opinion for the idea that Ukraine will likely have to accept territorial compromises and neutrality regarding the Atlantic Alliance in order to end the war, in line with the president’s promise to “end the conflict quickly.”
At the same time, Trump has adopted rhetoric that diverges from the 2022–2024 period, occasionally echoing elements of the Kremlin’s narrative. In mid-February 2025, he went so far as to claim that “Ukraine [had] started” the war by refusing to “make a deal” with Moscow, effectively shifting blame for the aggression (Trump’s False and Misleading Ukraine Claims - FactCheck.org). He also referred to President Volodymyr Zelensky as a “dictator” who “refuses” to hold elections—a misleading reference to the fact that, under martial law imposed due to the invasion, Ukraine is legally unable to conduct a national vote. These statements, factually incorrect (as it was Russia that launched the invasion in February 2022), prompted an outraged response from Zelensky, who denounced the fact that the U.S. president had been “trapped in a web of disinformation” about the conflict.
True to his campaign rhetoric, Trump also moved quickly on the diplomatic front. He spoke by phone with both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky in mid-February and announced the launch of direct negotiations with Moscow, with the stated goal of finding a resolution to the conflict. Notably, these initial talks took place without Ukraine’s participation, as Washington prioritized a bilateral dialogue with the Kremlin. On February 18, U.S. and Russian envoys—Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov—met in Saudi Arabia to discuss ending the war, with Kyiv excluded from the table. Additionally, the Trump administration appointed a special envoy for the Ukraine dossier, former General Keith Kellogg. In an interview on February 13, he stated that a potential territorial loss for Ukraine could be “formalized” in a peace agreement without constituting legal recognition by Washington (Ukraine’s possible territorial losses may be ‘formalized without recognition by US,’ Kellogg tells Fox News). This clarification aimed to ease concerns over the U.S. stance: despite officially maintaining a firm position (refusing to recognize Russian annexations), Trump’s administration is signaling that it may de facto accept Moscow’s territorial gains in Ukraine as part of a negotiated settlement.
Collusion – Trump’s Stance Toward Russia and Relations with Vladimir Putin
Since returning to power, Trump has adopted a remarkably conciliatory stance toward Moscow. He quickly resumed direct dialogue with Vladimir Putin: his February 12 phone call with the Kremlin leader was described as “very productive”, and Trump announced that they had agreed to launch peace negotiations and meet soon (Trump: not practical for Ukraine to join NATO, get back all land - Reuters). He mentioned the possibility of a meeting on neutral ground, such as Saudi Arabia, and was even invited by Putin for an official visit to Moscow. The warm tone of these early exchanges—more than an hour of cordial discussion, according to Trump—stands in stark contrast to the previously frozen U.S.-Russia relations. The administration praises the president’s negotiating skills: Pete Hegseth stated that the world is fortunate to have “the best negotiator on the planet” to bring Kyiv and Moscow together (Europeans warn US against Ukraine deal ‘behind our backs’ - Reuters). In practice, Trump avoids openly criticizing Russia for its invasion, instead focusing his criticism on Ukraine (as previously noted). This leniency toward Putin, seen as a negotiation partner, marks a clear shift in tone compared to the firm condemnations issued under the Biden administration.
This approach aligns with Trump’s characteristic style of diplomacy. The president favors direct relationships with strong leaders, bypassing intermediaries and multilateral approaches. His modus operandi, already evident during his first term, is to engage one-on-one with the other “strongman” in the room, even if it means sidelining other stakeholders (Trump’s Endgame for the War in Ukraine). In the case of Ukraine, this translates into a willingness to negotiate directly with Putin, relegating Kyiv’s government and European allies to a secondary role. Trump appears convinced that a grand bargain between Washington and Moscow could end the war, and he seems prepared to discuss sensitive issues directly with the Kremlin. Practically, the administration has hinted that a number of unilateral concessions could be on the table to satisfy Russia: freezing or reducing U.S. military aid to Ukraine, vetoing any future NATO membership for Ukraine, partially lifting sanctions on Russia, or even de facto recognition of Moscow-occupied territories. In return, Trump would seek commitments from Putin, such as a lasting ceasefire—an approach that reflects a highly transactional view of European security.
Some observers believe that this leniency toward Moscow is part of a broader geopolitical strategy aimed at redefining U.S. priorities. Trump’s implicit goal would be to bring Russia closer to the United States in order to isolate China, which he sees as Washington’s primary strategic adversary (Trump wants US to ‘partner’ with Russia to weaken China: Divide-and-conquer strategy - Geopolitical Economy Report). In this context, the war in Ukraine becomes a secondary concern, viewed primarily as an obstacle to warming U.S.-Russia relations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has even suggested that the U.S. could “geopolitically partner with Russia”, reflecting the idea that the real battleground is in Asia and that Washington should pull Moscow away from Beijing. Here, Trump is reviving a Realpolitik approach reminiscent of Nixon-Kissinger diplomacy: in the 1970s, the U.S. courted China to weaken the USSR, and in 2025, Trump is attempting the reverse—courting Russia to contain China. This perspective sheds light on his relative tolerance toward Putin and his eagerness to secure a deal on Ukraine, which he views as a prerequisite for reshaping the global balance of power in line with American interests.
Disillusionment – Implications for Europe and NATO
Washington’s new direction has sparked serious concerns in Europe and within NATO. While President Biden had strengthened transatlantic solidarity against Moscow during his term, Trump’s return has sown doubt among allies. His unilateral moves toward Putin—particularly the announcement of separate U.S.-Russia negotiations—have prompted explicit warnings from European leaders. The EU’s chief diplomat, Kaja Kallas, warned that “no deal [on Ukraine] behind our backs” could be viable, reminding that “appeasement has never worked” against an aggressor (Europeans warn US against Ukraine deal ‘behind our backs’ - Reuters). Indeed, European capitals fear that a settlement negotiated exclusively by Washington and Moscow could sacrifice their security interests. Several leaders have emphasized that one must “never confuse the aggressor with the victim” in this war (Trump and Zelenskiy clash, leaving Ukraine exposed in war with Russia - Reuters), reaffirming their unwavering support for Kyiv. The fear of a “Munich 2025”—a rushed peace at the expense of a small country under attack—looms over Western Europe.
European allies are working to remain key stakeholders in the diplomatic process to avoid being sidelined from decisions that will directly impact them. On February 13 in Brussels, during a NATO defense ministers’ meeting, European leaders emphasized the need to be included in peace talks, stressing that any settlement in Ukraine would have profound consequences for the continent’s security (Europeans warn US against Ukraine deal ‘behind our backs’ - Reuters). They also argue that Europe would be expected, as part of any potential agreement, to provide security guarantees to Ukraine—such as deploying peacekeeping forces or signing bilateral security agreements—and that, for this reason, it must have a seat at the negotiating table. The continent’s major powers (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom) are actively coordinating: in Paris, their foreign ministers agreed on a united front to influence the U.S. position, while London proposed hosting Zelensky and EU leaders to coordinate Europe’s response. In short, the European Union and NATO members are striving to slow down or reshape Trump’s fast-track diplomacy, fearing that a peace dictated by Washington and Moscow could permanently undermine European security.
However, Trump’s stance is also creating divisions within the Western camp. Some, like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán—a close ally of Trump—have welcomed the U.S. initiative and criticized their partners’ alarm, arguing that one must “earn a seat” at the negotiating table rather than simply demand it. This divide highlights that European unity against Russia is not absolute and that Trump’s strategy could deepen existing rifts between those advocating a hardline approach toward Moscow and those favoring a quick compromise. For NATO itself, the situation is precarious: the Alliance heavily relies on U.S. leadership, and Washington’s distancing raises existential concerns. European officials have already warned against a “peace through weakness” that would betray NATO’s traditional philosophy of “peace through strength.” There is growing fear that by conceding to Putin’s demands, the U.S. could weaken NATO’s deterrence credibility on its eastern flank. In the longer term, if Trump continues down a path of disengagement (he previously called NATO “obsolete”), Europe may be forced to drastically increase its autonomous defense efforts. Simply put, Trump’s foreign policy is testing Euro-Atlantic cohesion: it could either push the EU toward greater strategic autonomy or, in the worst case, erode the very principle of collective defense that has underpinned European security since 1949.
Infamy – The February 28, 2025 Meeting Between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky
On February 28, 2025, Donald Trump hosted Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House for a highly anticipated summit. Intended to strengthen the U.S.-Ukraine partnership and discuss peace prospects, the meeting instead turned into an open confrontation between the two leaders. According to media reports, the encounter ended in a complete disaster, with Trump and Zelensky trading sharp public accusations in the Oval Office (Trump and Zelenskiy clash, leaving Ukraine exposed in war with Russia - Reuters). Cameras captured an extraordinary scene: far from projecting a united front, the American and Ukrainian presidents openly aired their disagreements before the global press, revealing the depth of the rift that has emerged within weeks between Washington and Kyiv.
The stakes of this face-to-face meeting were high. Zelensky saw it as an opportunity to convince Trump not to abandon Ukraine or align himself with Putin. On the other hand, Trump was seemingly testing the Ukrainian leader’s willingness to compromise and pushing him to accept his diplomatic roadmap. The discussion quickly turned acrimonious. U.S. Vice President JD Vance, seated next to Trump, openly urged Zelensky to show more “diplomacy” to end the conflict—implying that Ukraine might need to cede territory to achieve peace. Visibly frustrated, Zelensky fired back, arguing that Vladimir Putin could not be trusted and recalling the failure of all previous attempts to negotiate with the Kremlin. Arms crossed, he challenged his American counterpart: “What diplomacy are you talking about?”, pointing out that Mr. Vance had never visited Ukraine to witness the realities of war firsthand. Turning directly to Trump, the Ukrainian president implored him to “make no compromises with a killer” in reference to Putin, reminding him of the nature of the Russian regime and the crimes committed since 2014.
Trump’s response was just as heated. Visibly irritated by Zelensky’s tone, he accused him of disrespecting the United States and refusing peace. Just minutes after the failed meeting, Trump rushed to post on his social media platform, claiming he had “determined that President Zelensky [was] not ready for Peace as long as America [was] involved,” adding that he would only return to negotiations when Zelensky was “ready for Peace.” Speaking to reporters as he left the White House, the U.S. president even suggested that Ukraine was losing the war and that Zelensky needed to face reality. “What he needs to say is, ‘I want to make peace.’ He doesn’t have to stand there saying ‘Putin this, Putin that’ in a negative way… He needs to say, ‘I want peace, I don’t want to fight anymore,’” Trump stated, criticizing Zelensky’s fixation on condemning the Kremlin leader. These remarks, unusually harsh toward an ally, starkly contrast with the strong support Washington had previously shown for the Ukrainian president at war.
The meeting ended abruptly. According to a U.S. official, Zelensky was asked to leave the Oval Office earlier than planned, leading to the cancellation of the scheduled press conference and closing dinner. A sign of the rupture, an economic cooperation agreement that was ready to be signed between the two countries was abandoned. Trump and Zelensky were supposed to finalize a strategic minerals partnership (aimed at developing Ukraine’s rich deposits of rare earth elements, lithium, etc., and reducing Western dependence on China). Although agreed upon in principle, the deal was put on hold due to the diplomatic fallout. Immediately after this episode, Ukraine’s European allies moved quickly to show support for Zelensky. French President Emmanuel Macron, NATO’s new Secretary-General Mark Rutte, and European Council President António Costa each called Zelensky to reaffirm their backing and defuse his isolation. The United Kingdom scheduled a summit with European leaders and Zelensky for two days later to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine, demonstrating Europe’s effort to counterbalance the U.S. disengagement.
This unprecedented clash between Washington and Kyiv highlights the underlying strategy of the Trump administration. By orchestrating this public showdown, Trump clearly sought to exert maximum pressure on the Ukrainian leader. The implicit message is clear: if Kyiv does not adhere to Washington’s preferred path of negotiation, U.S. support is no longer guaranteed. Trump appears determined to force Zelensky’s hand into accepting a ceasefire or a swift compromise with Moscow, openly using political intimidation (threats of aid withdrawal, public humiliation) as leverage. This approach aligns with Trump’s transactional worldview: he sees U.S. aid not as support for a democratic partner in distress, but as a bargaining tool to achieve a desired outcome (in this case, a “peace” deal that he can tout as a diplomatic victory). In short, the February 28, 2025, meeting—far from strengthening the U.S.-Ukraine alliance—revealed Trump’s intent to radically reshape American policy: Ukraine is no longer treated as a friend to be defended at all costs, but as a player that can be pressured into concessions in the name of what Washington deems higher strategic interests.
Fracture – Possible Consequences for Ukraine, Transatlantic Relations, and Global Stability
For Ukraine’s future, Trump’s stance raises fears of a settlement unfavorable to Kyiv. The U.S. president appears willing to concede to some of Russia’s key demands—whether by neutralizing Ukraine (excluding it from NATO) or abandoning occupied territories—in order to secure an agreement (Trump’s Endgame for the War in Ukraine). His administration has even suggested that it might “formalize” Ukraine’s territorial losses without officially recognizing them (Ukraine’s possible territorial losses may be ‘formalized without recognition by US,’ Kellogg tells Fox News), which would effectively mean accepting that parts of Ukraine remain under Russian control. A peace imposed under such conditions would mark Ukraine’s failure to fully restore its sovereignty and could lead to a permanent partition of the country. Deprived of massive U.S. military support, Ukraine’s army would be in a weakened position, potentially forced to halt its resistance due to a lack of resources, before repelling the invasion. Already, Trump’s pro-Russian stance is “leaving Ukraine increasingly vulnerable” both militarily and diplomatically (Trump and Zelenskiy clash, leaving Ukraine exposed in war with Russia - Reuters). Even a partial withdrawal of U.S. support could push Kyiv into accepting a fragile ceasefire that freezes the conflict rather than resolving it. In the long run, Zelensky’s leadership itself could be shaken if the Ukrainian public perceives Western abandonment and concessions to the occupier as unacceptable. In other words, Trump’s policy risks demoralizing Ukraine, forcing it to choose the lesser evil (an imposed compromise) rather than achieving total victory.
On the transatlantic front, the rift between Washington and its European allies could deepen. A rushed peace agreement at Ukraine’s expense, concluded without coordination with NATO and the EU, would severely undermine trust among Western partners. The unity displayed since 2022 against Russian aggression would be weakened, and the Atlantic Alliance itself would emerge diminished. The strength of American alliances—a cornerstone of the global order since 1945—could be jeopardized by this strategic shift. In practical terms, European nations would face two difficult choices: either reluctantly align with a peace deal they deem unsatisfactory and dangerous (which would morally undermine NATO’s unity), or reject this diktat and continue supporting Ukraine without U.S. backing—a highly challenging scenario both militarily and politically. In either case, the Euro-American bond would be significantly weakened. This could accelerate European efforts toward “strategic autonomy” to reduce dependence on Washington, particularly in defense and energy security. Distrust in the reliability of U.S. commitments—already fueled by Trump’s previous policy reversals—would reach an unprecedented level in Western Europe. Moreover, an open rift between the U.S. and Europe over Ukraine would be exactly what the Kremlin has sought for years—an erosion of Western unity. In this sense, Trump’s policy, if left unchanged, could permanently divide the Western bloc, with Russia in a position to exploit these fractures to its advantage.
Finally, from the perspective of global stability and the principles governing the international order, Trump’s choices in Ukraine could have far-reaching consequences. If Russia secures its territorial conquests by force, it would set a dangerous precedent. This would signal that a powerful state can violate the sovereignty of a weaker neighbor and still benefit from military intervention, thereby undermining the fundamental principle of territorial integrity. Analysts warn that such an outcome “would greatly diminish Ukraine’s vital interests, the strength of American alliances, and the rule of international law itself.” Indeed, the longstanding post-1945 taboo against territorial annexation by force would be eroded—it is “difficult to overstate” how much this would weaken the prohibition on the use of force and territorial conquest. A peace dictated by Realpolitik rather than respect for international law could embolden other revisionist powers to follow suit. China, in particular, will closely watch Ukraine’s fate: Beijing might interpret a lack of Western resolve in fully defending Ukraine as an implicit green light to escalate pressure on Taiwan. Similarly, states with ambitions to alter borders by force—whether in the Balkans, the Middle East, or Asia—could see an opportunity if major democracies appear willing to accommodate aggressors. In short, an overly conciliatory U.S. policy toward Moscow risks destabilizing the international balance beyond Europe, weakening the norms that have so far restrained territorial ambitions. Trump’s gamble—a swift end to the war through a great-power deal—might silence the guns in Ukraine in the short term, but at the cost of permanently undermining the principle that borders cannot be changed by force.
Conclusion: Strategic Fracture and Europe’s Awakening?
Since his re-election in 2024, Donald Trump has initiated a major shift in U.S. policy on the war in Ukraine, favoring a transactional approach that prioritizes American interests over traditional commitments to allies. Unlike the Biden administration, which viewed Ukraine’s victory as a key strategic goal, Trump has positioned himself as a pragmatic negotiator, convinced that a swift deal with Moscow is preferable to prolonged support for Kyiv. To achieve this, his administration is considering territorial concessions to Russia and forced neutrality for Ukraine, ruling out any prospect of NATO membership. Within this framework, Trump is pressuring Volodymyr Zelensky by signaling that Washington could scale back or even suspend military aid if Ukraine refuses to negotiate. This strategy, reminiscent of Trump’s first-term approach to military alliances, shakes European confidence in the strength of the transatlantic partnership. The tense February 28, 2025, meeting between Trump and Zelensky—where the U.S. president openly humiliated his Ukrainian counterpart—has come to symbolize this growing fracture.
Europe thus faces a strategic dilemma: continue relying on the United States or develop the capacity to stand on its own.
Europe’s Strategic Dilemma
The announcement of a possible withdrawal of U.S. support sent shockwaves through Europe, forcing the 27 member states to accelerate their discussions on collective security. Until now, European defense strategy has largely relied on the U.S. nuclear umbrella and NATO forces, but the new geopolitical reality is pushing them to consider alternative options.
Toward a European Army?
The war in Ukraine had already exposed Europe’s military weaknesses, particularly the lack of coordination between member states and dependence on the United States for strategic equipment. In February 2025, Volodymyr Zelensky himself urged Europe to establish a common army, declaring that “the time has come for Europe to build its own armed forces” to avoid “depending on the goodwill of the United States.”
- France has long advocated for a European army, with Emmanuel Macron pushing for greater strategic autonomy. Paris sees the current crisis as an opportunity to finally bring this ambition to life and strengthen Europe’s military sovereignty.
- Germany, despite its efforts to modernize the Bundeswehr with a €100 billion plan, remains hesitant about an integrated European defense, preferring to reinforce NATO. However, uncertainty over U.S. commitment and the change in chancellor are pushing Berlin to reassess its stance, with some officials now advocating for stronger military cooperation within Europe.
- The United Kingdom, despite being outside the EU, could play a pivotal role. It has signed multiple bilateral defense agreements with Germany and France and, in a scenario where the U.S. partially disengages, could emerge as a co-leader of European security.
Dependence on American Weapons: A Growing Problem
Despite calls for a more independent Europe, most European countries have continued to purchase American weapons on a large scale. In 2024, several states (Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, Italy, Germany) confirmed the acquisition of F-35 fighter jets, a strategic choice that enhances NATO interoperability but also increases dependence on the United States.
A French parliamentary report highlighted Europe’s paradox: “While Europe talks about strategic autonomy, its members are massively purchasing American military equipment.” Aligning with U.S. technology prevents Europe from developing its own military-industrial complex, a major challenge for any ambition of strategic sovereignty. If the United States were to restrict access to certain weapons or spare parts in the future, Europe’s military capability could be severely weakened.
London: A Strategic Role to Play?
Amid uncertainty over U.S. commitment, the United Kingdom is positioning itself as a key player. London has been at the forefront of support for Ukraine since 2022 and is determined to prevent Europe from fragmenting on defense matters. In February 2025, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated that the UK “is taking responsibility” and could deploy troops in a future stabilization mission in Ukraine.
This positioning is strategic: in the event of a partial U.S. withdrawal, London could serve as a bridge between Washington and Europe. Furthermore, the UK is working to strengthen its bilateral alliances with France and Germany, notably through the renewal of the Lancaster House agreements and the signing of new defense partnerships.
The Coming Months Will Be Decisive
If Europeans want to avoid being sidelined in the war in Ukraine and, more broadly, in the new geopolitical landscape, they must quickly clarify their position.
Three scenarios are emerging:
- Europe continues to rely on Washington, hoping that the Trump administration will not drastically scale back its support for Ukraine and continental defense. This option is risky as it leaves Europe in a state of uncertainty and vulnerability.
- Europeans take action to compensate for a potential rupture with the U.S., by developing their own defense capabilities. However, this transition will be slow and require a fundamental overhaul of military doctrines, along with massive investments in the defense industry.
- A hybrid scenario takes shape, where European states strengthen their strategic autonomy while maintaining an alliance with Washington, leveraging a more collaborative approach with the United Kingdom.
The question is no longer theoretical: the war in Ukraine has exposed Europe’s weaknesses, and uncertainty over U.S. commitment now demands concrete decisions.
The coming months will be decisive.
