The ongoing Ukraine crisis has highlighted significant diplomatic rifts between the United States and Europe, a division that has deepened since the return of Donald Trump to the White House. Under his administration, U.S.-Europe relations have been marked by conflicting approaches to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, revealing stark strategic differences and raising new challenges for European governments in the Trump era.
On Saturday, following a contentious exchange with Trump in Washington, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrived in London to a warm reception from UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Starmer reaffirmed the UK’s strong support for Ukraine, signing a 2.26 billion pound ($2.84 billion) loan agreement to bolster Ukraine’s defense capabilities.
In sharp contrast to Trump, Starmer said Ukraine has “full backing across the United Kingdom.” He stressed Britain’s “unwavering determination” to achieve lasting peace. Similar sentiments were echoed by French and German leaders, who reiterated their commitment to Ukraine’s security.
However, the growing rift between the U.S. and its European allies became apparent when the Trump administration sidelined European countries, including Ukraine, in peace talks with Russia last month.
U.S. strategic shift sparks European concerns
Zhao Huirong, a research fellow at the Institute of Russian, Eastern European and Central Asian Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told CGTN that Trump’s leadership style prioritizes short-term gains, adding that in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, Trump’s goal is to “freeze” the situation as quickly as possible, extract economic benefits and minimize U.S. commitments to its allies.
“For Trump, the most immediate and tangible benefit is to swiftly halt the conflict while securing access to Ukraine’s vast mineral resources, particularly rare earth elements,” Zhao said. She added, “Trump believes the U.S. has the leverage to pressure both Ukraine and Europe into accepting his terms. His confidence in this approach was evident during his White House meeting with Zelenskyy.”
During a meeting with Trump at the White House on Friday, Zelenskyy and the U.S. president clashed in a tense exchange, with a planned joint press conference being abruptly canceled and the much-anticipated U.S.-Ukraine mineral agreement unsigned.
The growing U.S. pressure on Europe extends beyond Ukraine. In addition to military aid, Trump has been imposing demands on European countries to shoulder a greater share of military expenses and threatening to impose more trade tariffs, further straining transatlantic relations.
Zhao noted that such actions are eroding trust between the U.S. and Europe and destabilized NATO, calling into question the future of the Western alliance.
Europe’s pursuit of strategic independence
European leaders are increasingly calling for greater strategic autonomy in response to U.S. isolationist tendencies.
In a recent CGTN survey conducted in collaboration with Renmin University of China and the Institute of International Communication, 57 percent of respondents from G7 countries expressed skepticism about their future relations with the U.S., with the highest levels of concern from Germany and Canada, followed by Japan, the UK and France.
Germany’s chancellor-in-waiting, Friedrich Merz, has warned that Europe must strengthen its defenses and even consider alternatives to NATO if the U.S. continues to neglect European security.
“My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA,” Merz said.
Similarly, French President Emmanuel Macron has publicly stated that Europe cannot afford to remain a “vassal” of the U.S., urging the continent to chart its own course in international diplomacy.
His remarks came after he visited Washington, where he sought to convince Trump to commit to security guarantees for Ukraine, but failed to receive any clear commitments.
Ukraine’s dilemma: Seeking U.S. security guarantees
Since negotiations on the mineral agreement began, Zelenskyy has repeatedly emphasized that signing a deal with the U.S. must come with security guarantees. However, Trump dismissed this idea during a recent cabinet meeting and said, “We’re going to have Europe do that.”
“For Ukraine, the ultimate security guarantee is NATO membership,” said Zhao, but the U.S. and Western allies have shown reluctance, fearing direct confrontation with Russia. Trump, in particular, has refused to offer such commitments, instead pushing Europe to take more responsibility for Ukraine’s defense.
Given Trump’s strategy of maximum pressure, Zhao explained, Ukraine has been forced to lower its expectations. Instead of NATO membership, Kyiv is now seeking security assurances in the form of military aid. This could include training for military personnel, supplies of weapons and ammunition, and even the production of arms within Ukraine.
How far away is a ceasefire?
According to the Kiel Institute, between January 2022 and December 2024, Europe committed $138.7 billion in aid to Ukraine, compared to $119.7 billion from the U.S.
“Over the past three years, the U.S. has played a pivotal role in providing military aid to Ukraine. If the U.S. were to halt its support in the future, Europe, in its current state, would likely struggle to bridge the gap left by America’s withdrawal,” Zhao said.
She predicted that, given the continued U.S. pressure and efforts to push for a ceasefire, there is a possibility that Russia and Ukraine could reach a truce within the next six months to a year.
However, she stated that such a ceasefire is unlikely to lead to a permanent peace agreement as territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine will remain unresolved, with both sides likely presenting their own interpretations of the territorial status quo.
Source: CGN
