Brussels – We may be witnessing a pivotal moment in history—a sliding doors moment that future historians will look back on. If not a point of no return, it is perilously close. Relations between Europe and the United States—and between Ukraine and Washington—have reached one of their lowest points, driven by the aggressive rhetoric and policies of US President Donald Trump in his approach to resolving war on the European continent.
“Everybody feared that Trump would simply pull out of NATO, but I think the risks here are actually far more profound,” Doug Klain, policy analyst at Razom for Ukraine, told The New Union Post. What we are witnessing, he said, is “a real fracturing of the transatlantic alliance” as we have always known it. The US president is doing this not only by starting negotiating with Russia without involving Ukraine or the EU but also by accusing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of starting the war and calling him a “dictator.”
It is clear that, in Trump’s mind, everything that happened before 20 January is irrelevant. He is portraying the US “like a neutral third party that has just been watching from afar and is now stepping in as a mediator to sort it out,” Klain said. At the same time, he is treating Putin “like an equal partner” and Russia “as a superpower,” as if it did not have “a GDP smaller than that of Texas”—$2.2 trillion compared to $2.6 trillion.
Russian propaganda, word for word
Western unity is under threat to the extent that Putin and the Russian leadership have long hoped for. “They planned the invasion of Ukraine on the assumption that the West was too weak and divided to respond,” Klain recalled. After three years of war, the Kremlin is well aware that Russia cannot win on the battlefield, and “the best hope Putin has for victory is that the US steps back and Western unity fractures.” This is a long-term strategy for Moscow, and it appears to be paying off.
More worrying is what the US president said about Zelensky and the war, which “is not just wrong, it is exactly the language that Putin has used for years,” the policy analyst at Razom for Ukraine warned. It is almost “word for word” how the Kremlin has sought to delegitimise Ukrainian statehood—something “deeply troubling and alarming” if words turn into actions.
NATO remains “the most fundamental mechanism to stop Putin’s goal” of undermining Kyiv’s sovereignty, as it would provide “the security guarantees” Ukraine needs to align freely, Klain stressed. By contrast, the Kremlin does not oppose EU membership, as the European Union lacks provisions for collective response and defence. “It is not seen as the same deterrent as NATO’s Article 5.” If Ukraine is trapped in diplomatic no-man’s-land, Russia will still have tools to shape its future—”even inside the EU,” he added.
The red lines for Ukraine
“No agreement to resolve the war imposed by the Russian Federation can be deemed legitimate by Ukraine unless Kyiv participates in the negotiations directly,” Bohdan Popov, political adviser at United Ukraine, told The New Union Post. This is something that “neither the United States, the EU, nor any other party aspiring to mediate can ignore,” he added, noting that the recent meetings in Riyadh were merely “an exchange of positions and preliminary groundwork” rather than a fully fledged negotiation process without Ukraine.
From Kyiv’s perspective, the conditions for peace are clear. “Any agreement must comply with the UN Charter” and must not include any provisions limiting its armed forces or implying the country’s demilitarisation, Popov said. These, he stressed, are all “red lines” Ukraine is not prepared to cross, “given the wartime experience of defence and the country’s vulnerability to aggression” from Russia.
Transatlantic “splitting” of positions could have an impact on both the immediate and long-term future. Popov noted that “we are now witnessing the emergence of several geopolitical poles of influence“—the UK-EU bloc on one hand, and the US on the other. Moreover, key issues like Ukraine, relations with Russia and China, and the development of the defence industry are becoming “decisive” for the future cohesion of the West. Without a common position, the transatlantic system risks weakening, potentially facing “a host of contradictions that could move to the forefront in the coming years,” he warned.
What does Trump really want?
Trying to get inside Trump’s mind—and decipher his strategy—is almost impossible. However, some clues have already emerged. “He wants a win,” said policy analyst Klain. He wants to show that “he can do what Joe Biden never could” and, from a practical standpoint, this is the only major foreign policy achievement he can claim, even though he appears to have little interest in the details of a peace settlement. “He just wants to get the win, and he is pushing for that as much as possible,” Klain added, citing Trump’s proposal on minerals: “He wants to get as much as possible for the US, demanding almost half of Ukraine’s natural resources. This is not a serious offer.”
If Ukraine falls and Putin sees that aggression is rewarded, “the threat will become immensely greater and far more difficult to deter,” Klain warned. It remains uncertain whether, in the event of a Russian attack on a NATO member, Trump’s United States would step in. By his own admission, he would only defend NATO allies that “pay their bills”—a reference to the defence spending targets he demands. This would include Eastern European countries, the Baltic states, and Poland. However, Trump’s broader efforts to undermine the unity and cohesion of the alliance raise “really profound questions” about whether he would follow through.
In this complex context, European leaders must reassess the EU’s role in securing the continent without trusted partners. “We are back in a time where significant events can and will unfold,” Klain warned, as the US president attempts to reshape Europe’s security architecture “in a matter of days and weeks, and we don’t have months.” This is why it is time for decisions and actions, “even if they are imperfect,” he stressed, citing Zelensky’s proposal for a European army. “Even if it seems unrealistic, it surely looks necessary.”
Urgent questions must be addressed by European leaders. How will they defend European security if the key guarantor of peace for decades is no longer there tomorrow? What will happen if they allow Ukraine to fall? “They’d better have an answer, because these questions may be raised sooner rather than later,” Klain cautioned.
