Trump’s resolution in Ukraine is resonating across Europe.
The initiative by President-elect Donald Trump to facilitate peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine is gaining traction among Ukraine’s European allies, who are increasingly concerned that the passage of time may not favor Ukraine in the ongoing conflict. As European leaders engage in deliberations regarding potential funding solutions for Kyiv in the event that the incoming Trump administration withdraws support, officials across various capitals acknowledge the growing imperative for a resolution to the ongoing conflict. Observers highlight Russia’s advancing position as Ukraine grapples with shortages of personnel and armaments.
The growing convergence between Europe and the Trump administration regarding the willingness to engage in discussions marks a significant shift from the situation just six months prior. At that time, European officials were apprehensive about the Trump administration’s commitment to swiftly negotiate an end to the conflict, concerned that the former president might strike a bargain with the Kremlin detrimental to Ukraine. Concerns persist in Europe regarding the extent to which the Trump administration may restrict Ukraine’s influence in determining the contours of a diplomatic resolution. Concerns among European leaders center on the extent to which the president-elect may acquiesce to Russian demands in the context of a cease-fire or peace settlement.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has lauded Trump, expressing optimism that his assertive rhetoric regarding American strength may compel Moscow to pursue peace. However, Zelensky has expressed apprehensions regarding the potential dangers associated with negotiations involving Russian President Vladimir Putin. Following a conversation between German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and President Putin on Friday, Ukrainian President Zelensky expressed concerns that the dialogue could potentially open a “Pandora’s box,” suggesting it might result in a series of discussions that would ultimately amount to “just a lot of words.”
“This aligns precisely with Putin’s long-standing objectives: It is essential for him to diminish Russia’s isolation,” Zelensky stated in his evening video address. “And to partake in discussions, commonplace discussions, that will ultimately yield no results. As he has consistently done for decades. Nonetheless, the Trump transition appears increasingly assured that Ukraine is more receptive to engaging in peace negotiations with Russia than it publicly admits. Trump and his senior advisers are of the opinion that, in light of recent battlefield setbacks, Ukraine will soon find itself with limited options but to engage in negotiations.
Ukrainian officials have reiterated their commitment to reclaiming the approximately 20% of their territory currently under Russian occupation. The stance enjoys widespread backing among Ukrainians, yet there is an increasing willingness to consider possible territorial concessions as Russia advances gradually but persistently on the primary eastern front, despite incurring significant losses. A survey carried out by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology in October revealed that 32% of participants were willing to concede certain territories in exchange for a cessation of hostilities and the safeguarding of the nation’s sovereignty. The figure rose from 14% the previous year, although a significant majority continues to oppose any recognition of lost territory.
Zelensky’s recently unveiled “victory plan,” articulated in various Western capitals, emphasizes the acquisition of weaponry and security assurances for Ukraine, aimed at dissuading Russia from launching additional assaults. Zelensky has asserted that genuine peace cannot be achieved through a mere temporary cease-fire, which would permit Russia to regroup and initiate another offensive. Officials and advisers from abroad who have engaged with Ukraine’s leadership indicate that Kyiv harbors concerns regarding Trump, while apprehensions persist that a Harris administration might perpetuate the gradual strangulation of support. Trump introduces a degree of unpredictability, extending even to Moscow, a situation that Kyiv perceives as an opportunity to leverage.
The pivotal inquiry that persists is the manner in which Trump will advance—and the extent to which Putin will participate in negotiations with genuine intent. His advisers have proposed a range of plans, each markedly diverging from the Biden administration’s “as long as it takes” strategy. The proposals, should they be incorporated into a definitive Ukraine-Russia agreement, may result in Ukraine abstaining from NATO membership for a period of 20 years, concurrently receiving additional armaments to counter a potential resurgence of Russian aggression.
Viktor Orban of Hungary has called on Europe to adopt a strategy akin to that of Trump, advocating for a prompt resolution to the conflict. Image credit: Attila Kisbenedek/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images. The present German administration has explicitly stated its opposition to Ukraine’s accession to NATO in the near term. Nonetheless, the stance of other European allies remains uncertain, even as there is a consensus on the necessity to initiate discussions aimed at concluding the conflict.
On Friday, Scholz engaged in conversation with Putin, as confirmed by a spokesperson for the German leader, marking their first dialogue in nearly two years. Scholz condemned Moscow’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine and called for the withdrawal of troops, reaffirming Germany’s established stance on the conflict. According to the spokesman, the call was significant as it signaled the revival of direct communications between Putin and Western leaders. In the course of the dialogue, Scholz pressed Putin to engage in negotiations with Ukraine, with the objective of securing a fair and lasting peace, according to the spokesman. Scholz reaffirmed Germany’s commitment to persist in its support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.
Following the call, the Kremlin asserted that Moscow has consistently been prepared to engage in negotiations aimed at resolving the conflict, emphasizing that any agreement must reflect the security interests of the Russian Federation, acknowledge the new territorial realities, and tackle the underlying causes of the dispute. The statement referenced Russia’s stance that Ukraine ought to acknowledge its territorial acquisitions and provide guarantees of neutrality in the future.
During a summit in Budapest last week, European leaders engaged in discussions regarding potential strategies in the event that the U.S. were to terminate assistance to Ukraine following Trump’s inauguration in January. Following a sequence of discussions with the president-elect, European officials adopted a cautiously optimistic stance. They noted that while Trump seemed intent on pursuing a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, he was open to the admonitions regarding the necessity of securing tangible concessions from Putin. Furthermore, they cautioned that any perceived weakness in Ukraine might embolden Moscow’s ally, China, to adopt a more assertive posture in its own sphere.
In numerous capitals, the official stance persists that Europe will extend its support to Ukraine for as long as required. This perspective finds strong backing in certain nations, including Poland, the Baltic states, and the Scandinavian countries. However, French President Emmanuel Macron and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni expressed caution during the Budapest discussions regarding Europe’s capacity to deliver the military, budgetary, and humanitarian support that Ukraine requires, particularly in the event of potential cuts to U.S. funding under Trump. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has consistently advocated for Europe to adopt a strategy reminiscent of Trump’s approach, emphasizing the need for a rapid conclusion to the conflict. His assertion that Europe is devoid of a pragmatic strategy to realize its stated objective—a Ukrainian victory that restores its territory—is resonating even in nations that are considerably more supportive of Kyiv.
Indeed, even in several of Europe’s more supportive capitals, the prevailing hope is that Ukraine can thwart Russia’s ambitions in the war, notwithstanding the significant toll it has taken on Moscow in both human and economic dimensions. This approach would maintain Ukraine’s sovereignty, albeit with the necessity of temporarily relinquishing some territory. Some diplomats suggest that an earlier conclusion to the hostilities may enhance the prospects of achieving that objective.
However, genuine apprehensions persist across Europe. Uncertainty looms regarding the concessions the president-elect may accept in negotiations, should Putin fail to engage earnestly and instead attempt to reinforce Moscow’s influence over Ukraine—a situation that senior officials in both the U.S. and Europe consider probable.
European officials assert that if Ukraine remains outside NATO, it is imperative to furnish the country with adequate military assistance to repel potential Russian offensives, emphasizing the necessity for ongoing U.S. support in these endeavors. There is a strong desire to guarantee that both Ukraine and Europe are included in the discussions regarding the resolution of the conflict and the future of security on the continent.
Senior European diplomats have informed their capitals of the necessity to brace for a potential initiative from Trump advocating for European troops to offer security guarantees for Ukraine and oversee the cease-fire along the extensive contact line, which may extend for hundreds of miles. Such a decision may pose significant political challenges for European governments, particularly for the continent’s nuclear powers, Britain and France. Proceeding in this manner, devoid of any American engagement or commitment to assist should Russia reignite hostilities, would render such an action considerably more perilous.
