Ukraine, NATO, and Europe's Future

The heated exchange between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Vlodomyr Zelensky in the Oval Office clearly highlighted a significant change in the United States' long-standing foreign policy regarding Ukraine, Russia, Europe, and NATO.

Gather around, everyone…  

Acknowledge that the waters surrounding you have risen  

And accept that soon you’ll be soaked to the core  

If your breath is something you wish to preserve  

Then it’s time to start swimming, or you’ll sink like a stone  

For change is in the air. — Bob Dylan

As it does every year, Russia has donned its nationalistic attire to commemorate Germany’s surrender. However, this year’s celebration extends beyond the defeat of Nazi forces 80 years ago; it also marks Russia’s proclaimed “success” in its “special military operation” in Ukraine.

Before the podium stands a formation of 10,000 troops in their ceremonial uniforms, including 2,000 veterans from the Russo-Ukraine conflict, alongside a regiment of female and youth cadets. The military bands perform the national anthem and a marching tune. On the podium are Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and notably, Donald Trump, the President of the United States.

As the battalions parade and military vehicles rumble across the cobblestones, Putin leans in to Trump, explaining the traditions of the marching regiments and showcasing Russia’s multi-warhead intercontinental missiles. Above, Sukhoi fighter jets soar by, leaving trails of white, red, and blue smoke that represent the Russian flag.

Earlier, Trump attentively listened to Putin’s address. Putin spoke of Russia’s resurgence from its past struggles, pushing Nazi forces back to Germany’s devastated capital, Berlin, where the Soviet Union once raised its hammer and sickle flag. “The Volgograd Tractor Plant in Stalingrad symbolizes the resilience of the Russian people. We cannot be defeated,” Putin declared. Trump reflected, “I made the right move in getting Zelensky to comply.”

Of course, this is a fictional scenario. Trump won’t be sharing the podium with Putin this year. However, the direction Trump is taking could, all else being equal, place him on that podium in 2026. For now, this possibility serves more as a metaphor for current events and what may unfold in the future than a concrete prediction.

What exactly is Trump’s policy, and what are his thoughts? These questions are crucial, especially considering the chaotic situation in the Oval Office, where Trump and Vice-President J.D. Vance confronted and embarrassed Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky.

IS THERE A POLICY IN PLACE?

This question doesn’t have a straightforward answer. According to the traditional policy framework of the US, Trump has (a) disrupted decades of established strategies regarding Russia, (b) put transatlantic relations on the brink of collapse, and (c) is steering the US into uncertain territory. In simpler terms, the US under Trump is heading towards disaster.

Trump, however, disagrees and poses a fundamental question: if not peace, then what?

He is known for his aggressive approach to negotiations, having advised readers in his book, The Art of the Deal, to “protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself.”

His tactics have left America’s European allies and Ukraine feeling disheartened, yet he also claims to be taking a practical stance. “I am a businessman,” he told Zelensky. “You don’t hold the cards right now. With us, you have the cards. Make a deal, or we’re out.”

Additionally, there was a significant moment that seems to have been overlooked. Trump warned Zelensky, “You are gambling with World War III,” and he reiterated this statement.

This gives insight into Trump’s mindset: if Ukraine isn’t winning and cannot reclaim lost territory, the US is wasting resources and risking involvement in an unwinnable war with Russia, especially considering the nuclear capabilities of both nations.

The implication is clear: let’s strike a deal. Offer Putin what he currently has and ensure he agrees not to demand more. However, for this to happen, Kyiv must first be willing to negotiate. This was the crux of the confrontation in the Oval Office.

To clarify, Trump admits he doesn’t know the details of such a deal at this point. Nevertheless, he wants Zelensky to recognize the necessity of halting hostilities.

It seems that Trump's agreement with Ukraine isn't focused on the Russo-Ukraine War; rather, it's centered on how Ukraine can repay its "debts" to the United States. Essentially, Trump appears to be pursuing a separate arrangement with Russia that is distinct from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. While the war undeniably exists, it is primarily a struggle between Russia and Ukraine, not between Russia and the US.

For Trump, the ongoing US involvement in the conflict is a significant misstep by Joe Biden, whom he labels an "incompetent" president who has been manipulated by Zelensky.

Trump advocates for continued dialogue with Russia, suggesting that Putin should be re-engaged in discussions. The US has already opposed Ukrainian and European resolutions at both the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council, indicating a notable departure from previous US policies. With negotiations with Russia underway, along with potential easing of US sanctions and the exchange of ambassadors, the direction seems increasingly clear.

In the meantime, Trump’s overarching strategy for Ukraine appears to be effective. While European nations scramble to hold urgent meetings and secure funding for their defense in response to Trump’s policy shift, Zelensky understands that Ukraine's chances are slim without US support. During the State of the Union address, Trump revealed that Zelensky had reached out to him with a letter expressing a desire to repair their relationship. Previously, Zelensky had shared on social media that their disagreement was "regrettable" and that he wished to "make things right."

Zelensky’s latest peace initiative, shared on X, proposes initial steps such as "the release of prisoners and a ceasefire in the air—prohibiting missiles, long-range drones, and attacks on energy and other civilian infrastructure—as well as a ceasefire at sea, provided Russia reciprocates."

However, this proposal did not meet Trump’s expectations for Zelensky, prompting him to increase pressure by halting intelligence cooperation with Ukraine, in addition to military assistance. Trump recognizes that Ukraine's military efforts heavily rely on intelligence to track Russian troop movements and logistical concentrations for effective targeting.

Last Tuesday, the meeting in Jeddah between US and Ukrainian officials aimed at repairing relations and initiating a new process sheds light on Trump's intentions—specifically, a swift 30-day ceasefire followed by discussions to potentially prolong it. The joint statement highlights that this ceasefire “depends on acceptance and simultaneous implementation by the Russian Federation. The United States will inform Russia that its cooperation is essential for achieving peace” [emphasis added].

According to the statement, the US “will also promptly lift the pause on intelligence sharing and resume security support for Ukraine.”

As of now, Russia has not replied to Zelensky’s proposal, and we are still awaiting their response regarding the proposed month-long ceasefire, which could be extended. Mikhail Alexseev, a political science professor at San Diego State University, noted that Zelensky’s proposal “is clear and serves as an excellent test to determine if Russia is genuinely interested in a lasting negotiated settlement that would allow Ukraine to remain an independent nation.”

Does it really? The US strategy seems to involve small explorations to gauge the situation.

Just a day prior to the Jeddah meeting, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio shared with reporters: “The key takeaway we need from here is a strong assurance that Ukraine is ready to undertake tough measures, just as the Russians will have to, to either resolve this conflict or at least bring it to a temporary halt.”

In a sense, this situation resembles a complex three-body problem, a term from mathematics that suggests there’s no straightforward solution. The US aims to halt hostilities to enhance its relationship with Russia and secure Ukraine’s mineral agreement; Ukraine seeks security assurances; and Russia has its own demands, some of which are quite ambitious.

Additionally, historical context plays a significant role in shaping the current dynamics and the intentions of both Russia and Ukraine.

HISTORY COMES INTO PLAY

About seven months before Russia's invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Putin wrote an article titled ‘On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians’. In it, he expressed his view that a “wall… has emerged in recent years between Russia and Ukraine, dividing what is fundamentally the same historical and spiritual space…” He attributed this “great common misfortune and tragedy” to mistakes made throughout history.

In his extensive 6,908-word piece, Putin asserted, “I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is only achievable in partnership with Russia,” rather than through the “Western architects of the anti-Russia project, [who have] structured the Ukrainian political system in a way that ensures changes in leadership but maintains a persistent attitude of separation and hostility towards Russia.”

Putin mentions Kyiv's growing relationship with NATO in just one paragraph, but the article primarily reflects his perspective on history. He outlines three key points: the idea that Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are all descendants of Ancient Rus; the errors that have caused the divide; and the external influences that have gradually pulled Kyiv into a risky geopolitical situation, intending to position Ukraine as a buffer between Europe and Russia, and as a launchpad against Russia.]

On February 28, 2025, a tense exchange unfolded at the White House involving American President Donald Trump (center) and Vice President JD Vance (right) as they confronted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. This diplomatic clash in the Oval Office has left both America’s European allies and Ukraine feeling quite disheartened | AFP. 

However, there’s another perspective on history—Ukraine’s own narrative. Serhii Plokhy, a history professor at Harvard, recounts how it all started with the Polish uprising of 1830-31. This division called for reconciliation, leading Count Sergei Uvarov, the deputy minister of education, to propose a tripartite formula to Tsar Nicholas I in 1832. This formula aimed to establish a new Russian identity through education, emphasizing Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality.

Despite the fact that “history textbooks written under Uvarov’s guidance legitimized the formation of a single Russian nation,” a challenge arose. In the 1840s, Kyivan thinkers like Mykola Kostomarov and Taras Shevchenko created a secret organization that asserted the existence of a unique Ukrainian nation. Their emphasis on the Ukrainian language, culture, and traditions became the foundation of national identity, leading to the emergence of the “modern Ukrainian national project.”

Since Ukraine gained independence, Kyiv has been actively pursuing a de-Russification agenda, which has become a contentious issue for Putin and Russia. Notably, while Zelensky’s first language is Russian, he expressed in a January podcast with Lex Fridman that he prefers to communicate in Ukrainian, stating that “we have lost all respect for Russian” due to Moscow’s aggressive actions.

While it's true that the decline of the Russian language and the political and linguistic divisions surrounding it can be traced back to Ukraine's 1996 constitution, the situation is complex. This constitution guarantees the "free development, use, and protection of Russian, as well as other languages of national minorities in Ukraine," yet it also establishes Ukrainian as the only state language, despite 34.1 percent of the population identifying Russian as their first language.

Critics argue that laws aimed at promoting Ukrainian culture are attempts to marginalize ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians, steering the nation away from its Russian influences.

This historical context intertwines with contemporary issues. Many experts point to NATO's expansion as a key factor in the ongoing conflict. While it is indeed a contributing factor, the situation is not solely driven by this. Russia is not without fault, but its actions should be viewed through the lens of perceived threats. Some analysts, like historian Sumantra Maitra, suggest that Russia resorts to military action when it feels threatened but tends to revert to the status quo once the threat diminishes. In this view, Maitra posits that Russia acts more as a security seeker than a power maximizer.

However, this perspective is precarious, as Russia has exploited ethnic nationalist tensions in regions like Transnistria (Moldova), Georgia (August 2008), and Ukraine (2014/2022) to assert its influence and occupy foreign territories. This behavior aligns more with power maximization than merely seeking security.

For example, it's worth noting that long before NATO expansion was a topic of discussion and while Ukraine was in talks to give up its nuclear weapons, the Russian parliament passed a resolution in July 1993 asserting Russia's sovereignty over the strategically important Ukrainian port city of Sevastopol.

Based on Putin's own remarks and actions throughout the years, it’s evident that he harbors resentment over Russia's gradual decline in power since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. His feelings of insecurity have intensified with NATO's expansion to the east and Ukraine's shift towards the EU and NATO. It’s not difficult to see that Putin’s Russia is determined to counter this perceived decline, or at the very least, raise the stakes for its adversaries who seek to encircle it and diminish its influence in neighboring regions.

Belarus serves as a buffer for Russia, while Ukraine has chosen to align itself with the West and distance itself from Russia. This shift prompted Putin to take action, starting with the annexation of Crimea and instigating unrest in the Donbas region. In this context, the current situation connects deeply with Russia’s national identity, with NATO's expansion being one of several contributing factors, though not the sole cause.

Depending on one’s perspective regarding the conflict and their interpretation of historical events, analysts have presented arguments supporting Russia’s invasion. Conversely, a compelling case can also be made for Ukraine’s resistance and fight for sovereignty. International law and its core principles uphold Kyiv's status as a sovereign entity with its own agency. However, the discussion has evolved beyond the justification for war to encompass the realities faced by both sides in the ongoing conflict. This unfortunate narrative is rooted in both history and geography.

THE WAR

Since the initial setbacks during the early days of the conflict, particularly the failed dual-axis advance on Kyiv from Belarus, Russia’s military has made significant progress. Military experts agree that, despite suffering losses in personnel and equipment, the Russian forces are now much larger, more seasoned, and better equipped.

Historically, Russia tends to struggle at the outset but learns and adapts as the conflict progresses. This time, Russia has chosen to leverage its strengths in artillery, not merely as a support element but as the main source of firepower, targeting both distant and nearby objectives. Other military units are strategically positioned to enable artillery to unleash its devastating capabilities.

One assessment highlights the difference in tactics: “Russian forces maneuver to fire, while Western forces fire to maneuver.” Without delving into the specifics of Russia’s operational strategies, it’s crucial to recognize that, aside from Ukraine, no European military (including US forces) currently has more battlefield experience than Russia.

Ukraine has also adapted and innovated, similar to the Russians. However, the challenge is straightforward: in a war of attrition, having more resources translates to better outcomes. In other words, numbers are crucial—whether it’s artillery, tanks, armored personnel carriers, drones, fighter jets, or personnel. This leads to the issue of sustainment, which relies on having sufficient numbers and the ability to replenish them.

A 1942 report from the US Naval College, titled Sound Military Decision, states: “Success is achieved not by personnel and equipment in optimal condition, but by the remnants of an organization worn down by the demands of campaigns and shaken by the rigors of battle. In war, objectives are met under conditions that often present significant disadvantages” [emphasis added].

This is where Russia holds an edge. Without external support from the US or NATO, Ukraine would struggle to maintain its war efforts. This was also the message Trump conveyed to Zelensky during their well-known meeting in the Oval Office.

To summarize: Russia has launched an aggression against Ukraine, which is undeniable. However, Ukraine is not achieving victory because Russia is not facing defeat, and Zelensky is aware of this reality. He also understands, now more than ever, that external assistance is not limitless. He is open to discussions about peace but demands security guarantees—specifically, that Russia will not invade Ukraine again. The pressing question remains: what will be offered in return for these guarantees?

Let's return to the topic of Trump.

On March 2, 2025, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and France’s President Emmanuel Macron gathered for a summit in London. This meeting followed a significant shift in stance from Trump, prompting European nations to convene urgent discussions | AFP

WHAT LIES AHEAD?

During a virtual address at the World Economic Forum in Davos on May 23, 2022, the late Dr. Henry Kissinger highlighted two crucial aspects regarding the ongoing Russo-Ukraine conflict: the necessity of seeking a diplomatic resolution to end the war and the likelihood that such a resolution would require territorial concessions to Russia, despite the ideal scenario being a return to the previous status quo. He remarked, “Continuing the war beyond this point would not be about Ukraine's freedom, but rather a new conflict with Russia itself.”

At the time, he faced significant backlash. However, despite his flaws, Kissinger had a grasp of realpolitik. In contrast, Trump, while not a Kissinger, is a businessman who recognizes that wars are not beneficial for his interests.

There’s also a notable distinction between the two: Kissinger would not have approached Russia without involving the US's traditional allies, whereas Trump views them as obstacles. He has charted a path that appears to diverge from established US policies and alliances, leaving the future landscape largely uncertain, though some initial outlines are beginning to take shape.

The question of whether Europe can support Ukraine without US backing is beyond the scope of this discussion. However, it is evident that Europe currently lacks the capacity to do so without straining its resources.

What are the possible outcomes?

The optimal scenario would involve Russia agreeing, in the initial phase, to a ceasefire along the existing frontlines and halting further assaults on Ukraine; establishing a demilitarized zone (DMZ) potentially overseen by a UN-sanctioned force; and committing to a “binding” non-aggression agreement that includes both negative and positive security assurances for Ukraine.

From Kyiv's perspective, the last point is vital, especially considering Russia's assertion that the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was not a formal agreement but rather a set of unilateral commitments from the UK, USA, and Russia. In exchange for this, Ukraine would refrain from joining NATO and the European Union.

However, this ideal situation seems highly improbable, particularly regarding a binding non-aggression pact and security guarantees. From Russia's viewpoint, the most favorable outcome would be to retain its conquests and annexations while negotiating an armistice that keeps future options open.

Ironically, similar to 1992 when the US focused on collaboration with Russia to persuade Kyiv to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the current US administration under Trump seems more interested in normalizing relations with Russia and achieving a ceasefire rather than pursuing a comprehensive peace agreement that addresses Ukraine's security concerns regarding Russia.

It’s doubtful that Trump fully understands the intricate process that led to the Budapest Memorandum or the intentional ambiguities embedded in that "agreement" to reach a compromise. His primary goal is to end the war, but the method remains unclear. Additionally, Trump is interested in a minerals deal, believing that the involvement of US prospecting companies would serve as a sufficient deterrent against further Russian aggression.

While this may provide short-term relief for Kyiv, it does not resolve Ukraine's long-term issues. A ceasefire might offer immediate respite, but it does not address the underlying conflict, which, given the historical context and ongoing tensions, is likely to flare up again in the future.

At this stage, Ukraine seems to have largely accepted that returning to the pre-2022 or 2014 situation is not feasible. Conversations with Ukrainian policy experts reveal that Kyiv would be satisfied with a ceasefire arrangement, provided that the Russian occupation of its land remains unrecognized and legally classified as occupied territory.

However, Ukraine is seeking more robust security guarantees than those offered by the Budapest Memorandum. This is where the challenge lies. For these security assurances to be credible, they would need to involve Russia, which seems unlikely. Unless there is a significant shift, such as Trump showing genuine interest in supporting Ukraine, Russia is unlikely to agree to such terms. Trump has made it clear that he does not wish to pursue this avenue, nor does he want the U.S. to be tied to Ukraine’s security through guarantees that could lead to conflict with Russia in the future. This situation leaves Europe with the responsibility to support Ukraine.

The question of whether Europe can rise to the occasion is a significant one, not only because it is not a cohesive entity but also due to various complicating factors that this article does not cover. As political scientist Samuel Charap from Rand has pointed out, Europe must first determine if it is truly willing to engage in war with Russia should it invade again. Deploying a tripwire force without a clear understanding of what that force would be responding to is not a sensible approach.

Nevertheless, if Europe can form a "coalition of the willing" and demonstrate determination, it will still encounter challenges related to capabilities, including manpower.

NATO was intentionally structured to ensure that the United States remains in a leadership position. The European forces within NATO largely depend on American strategic assets, such as airlift capabilities, air-to-air refueling, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, which are supported by national technical means and the 'Five Eyes' intelligence alliance. While Europe could focus on building these capabilities, it requires time and collaboration—resources that Ukraine cannot afford right now.

As a result, Kyiv's only immediate option, aside from the ongoing conflict and the risk of losing more territory, is to engage with Trump and see how that unfolds. Zelensky finds himself in a difficult situation. In chess, this is known as zugzwang—he must make a move, but doing so could potentially make his circumstances even worse.