Gbenga Adeosun
A lot might have changed between Zelensky and Trump in recent days. But nothing has changed between Trump and Putin, and the US leader’s latest display of complete trust in the Russian leader set off a huge, flashing alarm bell about the kind of deal he might try to do with Russia.
“I think he’ll keep his word. I’ve spoken to him, I’ve known him for a long time now, you know?” Trump said. “I don’t believe he is going to violate his word. I don’t think he’ll be back when we make a deal.” There’s an argument that only Trump among Western leaders could get Putin to the table and end a war that has inflicted a devastating toll on civilians, destroyed vast swaths of Ukraine, and rocked the world. But there’s tangible fear among US allies in Europe that Trump will settle for any deal with the Russian leader that validates his illegal conquest of about 20% of Ukraine’s territory, sets the table for an even worse war in the future, and tempts Putin to try to bite off another chunk of Europe – perhaps the Baltic states.
The US president’s comments regarding the conflict will have likely delighted the Kremlin, the seat of Russian power which has annexed four Ukrainian regions since launching the invasion and seeks Ukraine’s total submission. “A significant part of Ukraine wants to become Russia, and the fact that it has already become Russia is undeniable,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters when asked about Trump’s comments. When Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, it believed it would capture the capital Kyiv in days and the rest of the country in weeks. With the war still on, Moscow holds around a fifth of Ukraine’s territory. In 2023, it held a sham referendum in four occupied regions – Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson – in an attempt to lend legitimacy to its annexation.
Yet the ethical dilemmas of balancing geopolitical stability viz-a-viz Ukrainian sovereignty and potential retention of the annexed territories by Russia hang a cloud on the moral justification of the strategy. How he achieves that objective while castigating Zelensky and aligning himself with Russian talking points isn’t crystal clear. While a potential deal will likely involve key concessions that favours Russia like keeping Crimea and other provinces annexed since the conflict started in 2022, the risks of legitimizing military aggression which Russia used to start the conflict could precipitate future conflicts in other parts of the world if Russia is made to walk away with the territories eventually. Talks of China being emboldened to launch a hostile invasion against its neighbor Taiwan have been an open secret since the Ukraine war started and scant appearance of Russian triumph could spark acts reminiscent of a bygone era whereby expansionist aggression by powerful countries on their weaker neighbors was the order of the day.
The moves by the Trump administration have sent shivers down the spine of its partners in Europe and NATO who though are not entirely new to Trump’s typical antics that tend to disrupt the geopolitical order; will nonetheless be astounded by the speedy execution of his policy turn-around regarding Ukraine. Trump will only be in office for a four-year term as he is term-limited having done a previous term before; however, the potential adverse impact this chaotic turnaround could have on US integrity, trustworthiness, and leadership of a “rule-based order” is multi-faceted and would not augur well for the country even in the years after Trump’s departure from the Oval Office in January 2029. Two prominent European leaders; President Emmanuel Macron of France and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer jetted off to Washington for a meeting with Trump seeking to straighten jumbled ties, save the transatlantic alliance from uncertainty, and restrain Trump from abandoning the existing Western policy regarding the conflict while also reaffirming US-Europe relationships established since the end of World War II through the NATO association.
Britain and France are leading diplomatic efforts to put together a potential European peacekeeping force that could enter Ukraine if a ceasefire deal were agreed, but the plan hinges on an American security presence centered on air power and based in a nearby NATO country like Poland or Romania. Trump said Europe is going to make sure nothing happens after a deal is agreed but Starmer has insisted Europe can’t carry the burden alone and that American guarantees are the only way to prevent Putin from attacking again. Starmer also sought to persuade Trump to include Zelensky in talks over his country’s future; as the continent is intensely anxious about a pro-Russia deal being forced on Zelensky. Starmer further announced that Britain would raise its defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and 3% by the middle of the next decade, aligning with Trump’s persistent demand for European nations to allocate more to defence spending and NATO defence expenditure.
To further highlight emerging cracks within the Europe-US alliance, the incoming leader of the biggest economy in Europe, German’s Friedrich Merz said after his election win that Europe should achieve independence from the U.S. and slammed outrageous American interference in German politics.
On Monday, February 24, the US took its newfound pro-Russian stance to astonishing levels by joining Russia to vote against a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia’s war against Ukraine in a stunning shift from years of US policy. The vote against the Ukrainian and European-backed resolution saw the US at odds with its longtime European allies and instead aligning with the aggressor in the war on its third anniversary. The US again voted the same way as Russia later that day on a US-proposed UN Security Council resolution that did not call Russia the aggressor or acknowledge Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The resolution passed without the support of five European members of the Security Council.
In his meeting with Trump, Macron tried to inject a dose of reality into Trump’s ambitions to end the war in Ukraine, insisting they sought the same outcome of peace while simultaneously warning of Russia’s poor track record in keeping its international commitments. He stressed repeatedly the necessity of security guarantees to ensure Moscow keeps its promises this time around, and said any agreement must be “checked and verified.” He recounted his conversations with Vladimir Putin, saying there was value in talking to the Russian leader but only from a position of strength. “We want peace. He wants peace,” Macron said of his US as he stood next to Trump. “We want peace, peace swiftly, but we don’t want a weak agreement. This peace must not mean a surrender of Ukraine,” he said.
Macron proposed boosting Ukraine’s military capabilities, and – if requested – to deploy British and French troops to keep the peace. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also met Trump and stressed that a US backstop is needed for any Ukraine peace deal, which could potentially include security guarantees, American intelligence cooperation, air support, and heavy lift transport.
Trump meanwhile offered no mention of security guarantees but portrayed himself as a master negotiator in search of a deal. “I’ve spoken to President Putin, and my people are dealing with him constantly, and his people in particular, and they want to do something,” he said from the East Room. “I mean, that’s what I do. I do deals. My whole life is deals. That’s all I know, is deals. And I know when somebody wants to make it and when somebody doesn’t.”
Macron tried explaining to Trump that Putin had changed since the US president was last in office. And he warned that if Ukraine was defeated, the US could look weak to its other rivals, especially China. The French leader had hoped to use his yearslong interpersonal relationship with Trump to press Europe and Ukraine’s case after a week of serious deterioration in transatlantic ties.
Trump did voice openness to a European peacekeeping force in Ukraine and said he’d discussed the idea with Putin, and that the Russian president was also open to the idea. Later, Macron described Europeans as acting as an “assurance force” in Ukraine, with Americans acting “in solidarity,” though it was clear the precise contours of the plan still needed to be worked out.
Macron reiterated a stance he has held for months, acknowledging that Europeans must shoulder more responsibility for their security, a position on which the French leader is aligned in principle with Trump. But their differences were still rather obvious, and by the end of the day, it did not appear Trump had moved significantly from his positions on who was responsible for the Ukraine war or whether Europe had done enough to support Kyiv.
Ultimately, ending the conflict by any means necessary appears to be the topmost priority for Trump who has employed several hardline and one-sided tactics in his approach to achieving peace thereby relegating moral rectitude in the manner used to achieve cessation of the war.
