By: Qamar Bashir
During his visit to the White House, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky faced a stark contrast in treatment compared to the dignified receptions given to French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. While Zelensky was reportedly dismissed with little regard, Macron and Starmer were received with full diplomatic protocol, reflecting the shifting dynamics of U.S. foreign policy under President Donald Trump. Despite the respectful treatment, both European leaders remained firm in their stance, pushing back against Trump’s evolving position on the Russia-Ukraine war—once a strong supporter of Ukraine, now advocating for an abrupt end to the conflict on terms favorable to Russia.
During his recent visit to the White House, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky faced notably different treatment compared to the dignified receptions accorded to French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. While Zelensky was reportedly dismissed with little regard, Macron and Starmer received full diplomatic honors, reflecting shifting dynamics in U.S. foreign policy under President Donald Trump. Despite the courteous treatment, both European leaders firmly opposed Trump’s evolving stance on the Russia-Ukraine war—transitioning from strong support for Ukraine to advocating for an abrupt end to the conflict on terms favorable to Russia.
In separate joint press conferences with Trump, Macron and Starmer unequivocally stated that Europe would not accept a peace deal dictated by Putin without clear guarantees and accountability for Russian aggression. They emphasized that any ceasefire must align with Ukraine’s terms, ensuring lasting security rather than rewarding aggression. Both leaders reaffirmed Europe’s commitment to supporting Ukraine, even if it necessitated military involvement, signaling readiness to act independently of the U.S. if required.
Prime Minister Starmer underscored the UK’s unwavering commitment to NATO and advocated for a strategic approach to military funding. He emphasized that any peace deal must be fair, enforceable, and not embolden future aggression.
Declaring the UK’s preparedness to back a peace agreement with military and economic measures, he stated that Britain was ready to deploy forces if necessary. He also highlighted the UK’s increased defense spending as a step toward strengthening European security.
Starmer described Russia’s war on Ukraine as a moment of global peril and cautioned against a rushed peace agreement that could set dangerous precedents. He stressed that peace must be built on strength, ensuring that Putin cannot simply regroup and strike again.
In a subtle challenge to Trump’s approach, he affirmed that European unity was essential for long-term peace, regardless of U.S. involvement. Acknowledging shifting U.S. policies, he diplomatically framed it as adapting to a “new era” and supported Trump’s call for greater European responsibility in NATO, stating that the UK was fully committed to strengthening its defense posture.
President Macron took a similarly firm stance, reminding Trump that European leaders had collectively decided to stand with Ukraine during a G7 summit. He rejected Trump’s criticism of Europe’s contributions to Ukraine, pointing out that European nations had provided $128 billion in aid. Macron praised Ukraine’s resilience in defending not just its sovereignty but also the broader security of Europe.
In a pointed response to Trump’s transactional approach—demanding Ukrainian rare earth minerals in exchange for U.S. aid—Macron argued that such conditions undermined Ukraine’s sovereignty. He warned that a peace deal without concrete guarantees would be meaningless and emphasized that lasting peace must be defended, not just declared.
Macron also stressed that Europe was prepared to send troops to Ukraine once a lasting peace agreement was reached and signed by both Ukraine and Russia. He made it clear that European security was directly tied to Ukraine’s stability, stating that while the U.S. was geographically distant, Europe could not afford complacency given its proximity to the conflict. He reinforced the message that Europe was ready to take full responsibility for its security, with or without U.S. support.
In his address to the French nation following his visit to Washington, President Macron emphasized the urgency of bolstering European defense capabilities in response to Russian aggression and the uncertain trajectory of U.S. foreign policy under President Trump.
He declared, “The future of Europe does not have to be decided in Washington or Moscow,” underscoring the need for European autonomy in defense matters. Macron proposed extending France’s nuclear deterrent to protect other European Union nations, reflecting a commitment to safeguard the continent against potential threats.
He cautioned that “Russia has become a threat for France and Europe,” highlighting the importance of self-reliance in defense. Addressing the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, Macron insisted that any truce must be “solid for themselves and for all of us,” ensuring it does not reward aggression.
He emphasized the necessity of substantial guarantees for Ukraine’s and Europe’s security, stating that “peace cannot be concluded at any price.” Macron also advocated for a fair distribution of aid responsibilities, noting that Europe has already contributed significantly to Ukraine’s defense. He called for a balanced sharing of security burdens between Europe and the United States, reflecting a commitment to a unified and robust response to ongoing geopolitical challenges.
Ultimately, both leaders presented a unified European vision: peace must be durable, just, and backed by strength. They rejected any agreement that would leave Ukraine vulnerable and asserted Europe’s readiness to confront Russian aggression if necessary. Their firm stance sent a clear message—Europe will not be sidelined in decisions that affect its future.
The United States’ recent foreign policy shift toward a more self-serving and transactional approach has raised concerns among European nations. This change, characterized by prioritizing short-term business interests, risks undermining longstanding alliances and could lead to significant geopolitical consequences.
European countries have substantial investments in the U.S., totaling approximately $3.46 trillion. Should these nations perceive the U.S. as an unreliable partner, they might redirect their investments to other regions, diminishing America’s global economic influence.
This transactional stance could erode the international standing the U.S. has built over centuries, isolating it from key allies. Recent tensions with Greenland, Canada, Mexico, Panama, the Middle East, and now Europe—stemming from a 180-degree shift in U.S. policy on Ukraine compared to the previous administration—exemplify this trend.
The current U.S. policies, driven by a “Make America Great Again” zeal, may lead to a decline in international influence. It is imperative for the U.S. to reassess its approach to halt this downward trajectory in global geopolitics.
By: Qamar Bashir
Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)
Former Press Minister at Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former MD, SRBC
Macomb, Detroit
