Dr Muhammad Akram Zaheer
The meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, U.S. President Donald Trump, and Vice President JD Vance at the White House on February 28 resulted in a profound moment of reckoning for the Western alliance. In European political circles, anxiety has intensified, with some policymakers and analysts expressing concerns over the potential dissolution of NATO or the broader decline of the Western alliance. Uncertainty regarding U.S. strategic intentions has fueled apprehension about whether Washington seeks to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty or if the Trump administration aims to execute a diplomatic realignment by engaging Russian President Vladimir Putin in a manner reminiscent of a reversal of Henry Kissinger’s Cold War strategy. This crisis of confidence has widened the rift in transatlantic trust, posing significant risks to Washington’s global influence, its credibility as a stabilizing hegemon, and the cohesion of NATO.
Despite the gravity of the present crisis, historical precedents suggest that the Western alliance has withstood profound challenges in the past. NATO’s endurance, particularly following Russia’s revisionist actions over the past two decades, exemplifies the alliance’s resilience. Since the annexation of Crimea and the intervention in Donbas in 2014, NATO has not only persisted but has expanded in both membership and deterrence capacity. However, the Trump administration’s policies have introduced an unprecedented trust deficit, with European leaders now uncertain about the United States’ commitment to NATO and its leadership role within the alliance.The complexity of the situation necessitates a nuanced assessment of Trump’s contributions to Ukraine’s defense. During his first term, the provision of lethal military assistance, including Javelin anti-tank missiles, played a crucial role in enabling Ukraine to resist Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. The survival of Kyiv in the critical early days of the war can, in part, be attributed to this prior U.S. support. Given this precedent, it remains unclear why Washington would now choose to abandon a successful strategic partnership that demonstrated mutual resolve in defending Ukraine’s sovereignty.
The current Trump administration has now taken an active role in seeking an end to the protracted conflict. However, for this initiative to succeed, the United States and its European allies must bridge the widening trust deficit. European engagement is critical not only for ensuring a viable and for just resolution for Ukraine but also for preventing a broader strategic shift in U.S. foreign policy focus away from Europe toward China. Rebuilding trust will require prompt diplomatic reconciliation with Zelensky and Ukrainian leadership following the February 28 White House confrontation.The broader security equation also necessitates a reevaluation of Europe’s role in collective defense. Although the U.S. military presence in Europe has been reinforced in recent years, it remains insufficient relative to Russia’s force posture in Ukraine and its western military districts. Given Washington’s firm stance against deploying ground forces in Ukraine, European states must assume a more proactive role in securing any prospective peace arrangement. The Trump administration’s request for European forces to enforce a settlement must be met with a reciprocal European demand for meaningful participation in the negotiation process, ensuring that any agreement aligns with Europe’s long-term security interests.
An equally significant challenge lies in engaging Russia in a sustainable peace process. Moscow has yet to signal substantive concessions, instead articulating maximalist demands that complicate negotiations. A durable settlement cannot be achieved merely by solidifying the existing lines of conflict in eastern Ukraine, as Russia is likely to introduce additional strategic conditions, including limitations on U.S. military deployments in Eastern Europe. The United States and Europe must prepare for a prolonged and arduous diplomatic engagement to address these security concerns comprehensively.A fundamental recalibration of European leadership in security affairs is imperative. To reinforce their strategic autonomy and strengthen alliance cohesion, European states—particularly France, Germany, and Poland—must spearhead a major defense initiative. A proposed European Defense Union (EDU) could serve as the institutional framework for such efforts, emphasizing joint defense procurement, military training, and collective deterrence. Furthermore, the participation of nuclear-armed European states, notably France and the United Kingdom, could enhance the EDU’s strategic deterrence capabilities.
From a diplomatic perspective, the most effective mechanism for integrating Europe, Ukraine, and other key stakeholders into the peace process would be the reestablishment of a multilateral contact group under U.S. leadership. The historical precedent of such diplomatic frameworks, successfully employed in past conflict resolution efforts, underscores their utility in fostering unity and purpose within the alliance. Washington should recognize the efficacy of this approach in ensuring a sustainable resolution to the Ukraine conflict.The reflections of diplomat Richard Holbrooke remain relevant in this context. In his seminal work “America, a European Power,” Holbrooke emphasized that sustained American engagement remains a critical component of European stability. The contemporary geopolitical landscape reinforces the validity of this assertion: while Europe requires U.S. leadership to secure a lasting peace in Ukraine, the United States equally depends on a strong transatlantic partnership to achieve this objective. Whether the Trump administration acknowledges this interdependence will be a defining factor in shaping the future of the Western alliance.
