US President Donald Trump has announced his intention to discuss “peace in Ukraine” with Russian President Vladimir Putin at a potential meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. This encounter between the two leaders could either lead to meaningful outcomes or result in a complete failure, reminiscent of their 2018 summit in Helsinki.
The significance of Trump’s surprising announcement has invigorated a dialogue in Europe about how to deal with a seemingly unreliable ally. The mere thought that an American president could negotiate a significant geopolitical deal in Europe, effectively sidelining European interests, has unsettled many and raised concerns about facing a hostile and aggressive Russia alone.
The discourse on how to tackle this challenge appears to have diverged into two distinct viewpoints.
One perspective holds that the only feasible approach is to draw closer to the United States, hoping that strategic disengagement will not occur. This approach entails disregarding Trump’s flamboyant rhetoric and, if necessary, catering to his immense ego by meeting some of his demands.
To appease the US president, suggestions have been made to reduce tariffs on American vehicles or to significantly increase purchases of liquefied natural gas from the US. Consensus exists regarding the need for European nations to increase defense spending, particularly on American-made weapons. There is a strong willingness to do so, especially among countries on the EU’s eastern frontier; Poland, the Czech Republic, and Romania have already expressed interest in acquiring the cutting-edge F-35 fighter jet from US defense company Lockheed Martin.
Ukraine is also part of this coalition. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy began courting Trump long before the latter’s election victory in November. His proposal to grant the US access to Ukraine’s vital mineral resources appears to resonate with the “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) supporters and with Trump himself.
Unfortunately, Zelenskyy was unaware of Trump’s phone call with Putin, contributing to a genuine sense of betrayal. At the recent Munich Security Conference, the Ukrainian president emphasized the need for European unity, directly opposing the divisive remarks made by Trump’s vice president, JD Vance.
Nevertheless, Zelenskyy will persist in advocating with the unpredictable Trump and traditional Republicans within the US administration, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, to influence the US stance. During the Munich conference, he met with a group of Republican senators, including Lindsey Graham, who called for extending US support for Ukraine’s military.
The Kremlin and MAGA supporters appear to underestimate Ukrainian agency. However, three years of conflict demonstrate otherwise. For a ceasefire to be effective, Ukraine must be involved in discussions—something Zelenskyy made clear in Munich.
That said, it seems highly unlikely that Trump would accommodate Kyiv. He tends to favor reducing support, a policy direction that aligns with the sentiments of his voter base.
Consequently, a second line of thought in Europe advocates for reducing dependence on the US. French President Emmanuel Macron has long championed this idea. In a recent interview with the Financial Times, Macron reiterated the call for strategic autonomy in crucial areas such as defense and technology. The recent AI summit in Paris and the EU’s determination to resist potential tariff disputes with the US indicate growing momentum in this direction.
Macron has also been the first European leader to suggest the possibility of deploying European troops to Ukraine. While he doubts the ability of EU member states and the UK to send as many as 200,000 soldiers—a figure cited by Zelenskyy—the option remains very much under consideration from France’s perspective.
Macron interprets Trump’s initiative as a chance for Europeans to “muscle up” and emerge as a security guarantor, positioning Ukraine as Europe’s route to global significance.
Of course, this vision has its share of potential vulnerabilities. Macron faces domestic challenges, and the question of his successor at the Elysee Palace lingers. Germany, likely to be led by the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) after the elections on February 23, may not adopt as aggressive a stance. The populist challenge to a Superpower Europe could also complicate matters.
European armed forces currently lack the capacity and are overly reliant on the US. Additionally, their budgets are under strain, raising the perennial guns-vs-butters dilemma. Germany’s debt constraints, which the CDU seems hesitant to amend, further exacerbate the situation. Long-term concerns regarding productivity growth, innovation, and technological advancement were underscored in a report by former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi, tempering expectations that Europe could compete alongside the US and China.
While the EU may struggle to establish itself as a superpower on the global stage, its reliance on the US is untenable. Trump’s “America First” policy will likely continue to steer Europeans more towards Macron’s preferred course. The takeaway from the US’s outreach to Putin is that established norms governing transatlantic relations are becoming less relevant.
Even among the staunchest supporters of a US alliance, hedging—an adjusted version of strategic autonomy—emerges as the most viable long-term strategy.
Rather than a complete separation from the US and the dissolution of NATO, hedging suggests finding ways to push back against and influence US actions as much as possible or simply pursuing independent policies without concern for Washington’s opinions regarding issues like China, trade, or technology regulations.
We can expect to see an increasing trend in this direction even beyond Trump’s presidency.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
