The decades-long relationship between Europe and the United States at stake for the war in Ukraine

Translated by Irene Cecchi

From the beginning of his term in January 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump positioned himself as a mediator between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, claiming he wanted to end the war as soon as possible by reaching an agreement between the parties. After speaking with Putin and following confrontations between U.S. and Russian delegations in Saudi Arabia, Trump welcomed Zelensky to Washington for a diplomatic meeting that was supposed to unfold like many others. After Zelensky’s reception at the White House, the agenda included a customary press meeting in the Oval Office, followed by a lunch and then the signing of the controversial rare earths elements agreement.

However, what happened in front of the world’s cameras was unprecedented in the recent diplomatic history of Western countries. During the press meeting, the two presidents first discussed the rare earths elements agreement. In this context, Zelensky repeatedly demanded security guarantees for Ukraine in exchange for his signature, while Trump reiterated his role as a mediator between Zelensky and Putin—two people who, in his words, “do not like each other”.

The discussions ended in a heated verbal exchange between Zelensky, Trump, and U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance. Pressed by Vance, the Ukrainian president emphasized that the U.S. could not fully understand Ukraine’s struggles and warned that even across the ocean, the consequences of a peace deal with Putin that lacks real security guarantees for Kyiv would be felt. At this point, Zelensky was accused of being disrespectful and not sufficiently grateful toward the country that, according to Trump and Vance, had done the most to help Ukraine against Russia. Finally, Trump accused Zelensky of "gambling with World War III" while the Ukrainian president responded that he was not “playing cards” but fighting for people's lives.

Trump then urged Zelensky to accept the agreement, for a future ceasefire and peace—while also ensuring continued U.S. support. After this tense exchange, Zelensky immediately left the White House without signing the agreement, while Trump invited him to return "when he is ready for peace”.

It does not take an expert political analyst to understand that Zelensky found himself in a position of big disadvantage. On the one hand, Ukraine needs U.S. aid but on the other, accepting Trump’s terms would mean a moral defeat in these early negotiations and failing to secure solid guarantees against Russia. As Zelensky reminded Trump during their meeting, after Russia’s first invasion of Donbas and the annexation of Crimea in 2014, a peace agreement had been reached between Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and France but the events of 2022 proved that such a solution is fragile if it lacks military and political security assurances.

Many Ukrainians at home expressed support and trust in their president for standing up. If the U.S. truly ceases its support for Kyiv, Ukrainians hope that their country can still win the war with more substantial help from Europe.

It is precisely Europe that has reacted with deep concern to the disastrous outcome of the Trump-Zelensky meeting. The day after the encounter, Zelensky traveled to London to meet British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and then attended a European summit on March 3, where European leaders reaffirmed their support for Kyiv. However, Starmer advised Zelensky to mend ties with Washington, stressing that Ukraine could not afford to lose its strongest ally, despite Europe’s backing. Furthermore, at the end of the summit, Zelensky stated that he was willing to sign the economic agreement on rare earths elements, a declaration that followed several attempts to ease tensions with the White House. In response, Trump soon announced a “pause” in U.S. aid to Kyiv—at least until Zelensky demonstrates that he truly wants peace.

These events have highlighted the price of Europe’s 80-year dependence on the United States. Since the end of World War II, Europe and the U.S. have generally been aligned on geopolitical matters, not only because of their thigh trade relations but also due to the rhetoric that portrays them as global defenders of democracy. Europe, which until now has relied on U.S. support, risks finding itself alone in backing Ukraine against Russia—an extremely dangerous scenario without American military assistance, which can no longer be taken for granted.

After all, if the EU has refrained from investing in military spending for decades, it is because of its very nature: an economic and then political union created after the devastation of World War II precisely to silence weapons. However, now, alongside Ukraine, all of Europe risks being overpowered by stronger forces. Probably, this risk is what prompted the European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen to launch ReArm Europe, a plan to rearm EU countries. The plan would grant member states more fiscal flexibility to increase defense spending, allowing them to bypass the limits imposed by the Stability and Growth Pact. A project that undoubtedly raises significant questions—both about Ukraine’s future and the future of Europe as a whole.

Europe knows well that to avoid being sidelined in the U.S.-Russia relations must be strong, this was the explanation for the European Commission's decision. However, strength should come from a shared defense strategy rather than merely allowing member states to increase military spending. The establishment of a common European defense has been strongly debated since the 1950s, as reaching an agreement among member states seems nearly impossible. Demonstrating unity and cohesion is precisely what Europe should do—not only to avoid being excluded and weakened but also to remain consistent with the very values on which it was founded.

Mondo Internazionale APS - Riproduzione Riservata ® 2025