Europe’s Trump dilemma

President Donald Trump’s recent announcement that he intends to discuss “peace in Ukraine” with Russian President Vladimir Putin at a potential meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, has sparked significant concern and debate across Europe. The potential meeting, which could either yield meaningful results or end in failure like the 2018 Helsinki summit, has highlighted a growing unease among European leaders. At the heart of this anxiety is the realization that an American president could unilaterally negotiate a major geopolitical deal in Europe without consulting European allies. This has raised fears about Europe being left vulnerable to an aggressive Russia if the U.S. were to scale back its involvement. Trump’s announcement has supercharged discussions in Europe about how to navigate this uncertain future, with leaders grappling over whether to cling tighter to the U.S. or strive for greater independence.

One line of thinking within Europe suggests that the most realistic approach is to strengthen ties with the U.S. and hope that Trump’s administration does not pursue a strategic withdrawal from the continent. This strategy involves tolerating Trump’s unpredictable behavior and even flattering his ego to maintain his support. Some European leaders have proposed concessions, such as reducing tariffs on American-made cars or purchasing more liquefied natural gas from the U.S., to appease Trump. Additionally, there is a growing consensus that European nations should increase their defense spending, with many opting to purchase advanced weapons systems from the U.S. For instance, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Romania have already expressed interest in acquiring the F-35 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin. Ukraine, too, is actively courting Trump, with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy pitching access to the country’s critical minerals as part of his outreach efforts. However, Zelenskyy was notably not informed about Trump’s recent call with Putin, leaving Ukraine feeling betrayed and underscoring the precarious nature of its relationship with the U.S.

Despite this, Zelenskyy continues to engage with Trump and key Republican figures, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, in an effort to shape U.S. policy. At the Munich Security Conference, Zelenskyy met with a delegation of Republican senators, including Lindsey Graham, who advocated for continued U.S. support for Ukraine’s military. However, there is skepticism about whether Trump would truly consider Ukraine’s interests in any negotiations with Putin. Many believe that Trump’s tendency to scale back U.S. involvement in global conflicts could harm Ukraine’s position, especially as his base increasingly supports isolationist policies. This has led to a growing recognition that Ukraine cannot be sidelined in any peace talks, as Zelenskyy emphasized in Munich. After three years of war, Ukraine has demonstrated its ability to shape its own destiny, and any ceasefire would require its active participation.

On the other hand, a second school of thought in Europe advocates for reducing reliance on the U.S. and pursuing greater strategic autonomy. French President Emmanuel Macron has long championed this approach, calling for Europe to assert its independence in critical areas such as defense and technology. Recent developments, such as an AI summit in Paris and the EU’s resolve to stand firm against potential U.S. tariffs, suggest that there is growing momentum behind this vision. Macron has also floated the idea of deploying European troops to Ukraine, though he acknowledges that the scale of such an effort would be limited compared to Zelenskyy’s request for up to 200,000 troops. For Macron, Trump’s initiative presents an opportunity for Europe to step into a more prominent global role, with Ukraine serving as a key testing ground for this new assertiveness.

However, this vision of European strategic autonomy faces significant challenges. Macron’s domestic political standing is precarious, and the question of who will succeed him as president remains uncertain. Additionally, Germany, which is likely to be governed by the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) after its upcoming elections, is far less enthusiastic about taking on a more hawkish role. The rise of populist movements across Europe further complicates the picture, as they often challenge the idea of a unified European foreign policy. Moreover, Europe’s military capabilities remain limited, with many nations still heavily reliant on the U.S. for defense. Budget constraints and the competing demands of social spending versus military investment also pose significant hurdles. A September report by former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi highlighted long-term concerns about Europe’s productivity growth, innovation, and technological development, all of which would need to be addressed for Europe to become a credible global power.

While the idea of Europe emerging as a superpower alongside the U.S. and China seems unlikely in the near term, the current state of transatlantic relations underscores the unsustainability of Europe’s dependence on the U.S. Trump’s “America First” approach has made it clear that the old certainties of U.S.-European cooperation can no longer be taken for granted. As a result, even staunch supporters of the transatlantic alliance are beginning to see the value in hedging their bets. This approach, often referred to as a more modest form of strategic autonomy, involves pushing back against U.S. influence where necessary and pursuing independent policies on issues such as China, trade, and technology regulation. Rather than a complete divorce from the U.S. or the dissolution of NATO, this strategy seeks to create a more balanced and resilient partnership that is better equipped to navigate the challenges of the 21st century. Whether Europe succeeds in this endeavor will depend on its ability to overcome its internal divisions and invest in the capabilities needed to assert its influence on the global stage. One thing is clear, however: the old rules of transatlantic relations no longer apply, and Europe must adapt to this new reality.