European capitals are once again filled with familiar anxiety as Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be preparing to reach an agreement with US President Donald Trump, raising concerns about a split in the transatlantic alliance that could lead Moscow to achieve its goals in Ukraine and face unsettling consequences for Europe.
Ahead of the suddenly announced summit in Alaska, a sense of foreboding permeates diplomatic circles. As one European diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the discussions, starkly put it to CNN: “We are at risk of being a footnote in history.” This profound concern stems, in part, from the unsettling lack of transparency surrounding the Kremlin’s proposals to halt the fighting in Ukraine. Vladimir Putin has offered no details, and US envoy Steve Witkoff remained silent after his recent meeting with the Russian leader.
Adding to this unease are President Trump’s ambiguous public statements, such as his remark after Witkoff’s departure from Moscow: “It’s very complicated. We’re going to get some back, we’re going to get some switched. There will be some swapping of territories, to the betterment of both.” This vague outlook, especially the phrase “the betterment of both,” raises significant concerns across Europe, where the likelihood of a mutually beneficial outcome is viewed with deep skepticism.
1.There is indeed “zero indication that Putin has shifted an inch on his maximalist demands,” concerning territorial claims or Ukraine’s future security, a situation that the European perception, as an anonymous diplomat noted, suggests is interpreted as “there is no sense in Paris, Berlin or London that seizing someone else’s territory matters to this US administration, and the (Europeans) find that deeply disturbing.” This perceived disregard for established international norms regarding sovereignty is a major source of European apprehension.
The critical nature of this situation prompted the UK, France, Germany, Italy, the European Union, Poland, and Finland to issue a joint statement on Saturday, unequivocally declaring: “We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force.” This collective affirmation highlights Europe’s steadfast dedication to the fundamental principles of international law, which they feel are under direct threat from Moscow’s ambitions and potentially from a US-brokered agreement.
Much of the diplomatic activity has revolved around desperately seeking clarity on what might be negotiated. European officials spent a significant portion of the day making their case to US Vice President JD Vance, who was about to commence a vacation in the UK, pressing for insights into the impending summit. This scramble for information highlights the sense of being on the outside, left to guess the terms of a deal that could reshape the continent’s security landscape.
2.The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has observed that the “Trump Administration has described Russian President Vladimir Putin’s reported demands for a ceasefire in Ukraine in four different ways since August 6,” yet a consistent element across all versions is Putin’s insistence that Ukrainian forces withdraw from all occupied territories in the Donetsk region, including major cities like Slovyansk, Kramatorsk, and Kostyantynivka.
This demand, if conceded, would force Ukraine to abandon its “fortress belt,” described by ISW as “the main fortified defensive line in Donetsk Oblast since 2014.” Such a move would leave Ukraine dangerously exposed to future aggression, a point echoed by Mick Ryan, who tracks the Ukrainian conflict in his Futura Doctrina blog. He asserted on Sunday that “Ukraine, more than anyone, understands that ceded territory would then be used as the launch pad for future Russian aggression,” a chilling echo of historical precedents.
The parallels with the Munich Agreement of 1938 are indeed striking, serving as a stark reminder of the dangers of appeasement. Even after the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain famously quoted Hitler as assuring him: “This is the last territorial claim which I have to make in Europe.” For many Europeans, the fear is that history might tragically repeat itself, with dire consequences for the continent’s security and stability.
Beyond Donetsk, uncertainties persist regarding Putin’s broader territorial aspirations. It remains unknown whether he will insist on Russia being ceded control of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, two other Ukrainian regions whose regional capitals are still firmly in Ukrainian hands. Alternatively, he might accept a freeze along the current frontlines in these regions, a scenario complicated by the fact that parts of these lines run through open countryside, making monitoring a formidable challenge.
3.Another critical unknown revolves around Putin’s potential demand that Ukraine officially recognize Moscow’s sovereignty over Crimea, illegally annexed in 2014. And if such a demand were made, what, if anything, would Moscow offer in return? Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has already unequivocally stated that the Ukrainian constitution explicitly prohibits giving up any of its territory, setting a clear red line.
For Europeans, the sequence of events is crucial. They firmly regard a ceasefire as the indispensable precondition for any discussions about territory. As European leaders stated on Saturday, “The current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations.” This emphasis reflects a deep-seated concern that premature territorial concessions would legitimize Russia’s aggression and undermine Ukraine’s sovereign integrity.
Furthermore, there is a lingering question over whether the Kremlin would agree to some form of European “reassurance force” to guarantee a ceasefire. All indications to date suggest that Russia would not permit any NATO member to contribute to such a force, complicating the prospect of credible security guarantees. European leaders have stressed the necessity of “robust and credible security guarantees that enable Ukraine to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity,” a sentiment that, despite their efforts, may ultimately prove to be “whistling in the wind.”
4.The deep-seated frustration felt by Europeans has been vividly articulated by Rym Momtaz of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She observed that “since his inauguration in January, the Europeans have bought unlimited passes for the Trump roller coaster ride. They have climbed on, strapped themselves in, and regularly screamed out in terror but failed to get off.” This reflects a perceived paralysis, a consequence of Europe’s historical reliance on American leadership and its failure to cultivate a strategic identity independent of US influence, a path French President Emmanuel Macron has advocated for eight years.
Reduced to pleading and guessing, Europeans find themselves largely on the sidelines, despite their ardent desire to support and protect Ukraine. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas convened a meeting of EU foreign ministers to discuss “Russia’s aggression against Ukraine,” and stated emphatically on Sunday that “any deal between the US and Russia must have Ukraine and the EU included, for it is a matter of Ukraine’s and the whole of Europe’s security.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz echoed this sentiment, declaring: “We cannot accept that territorial issues between Russia and America are discussed or even decided over the heads of Europeans and Ukrainians.”
To Mick Ryan, the former Australian general who meticulously tracks the conflict, Europe’s current predicament is far more hazardous than it ought to be, largely because, in his view, the US itself lacks a coherent Ukraine strategy. He describes Washington’s approach as characterized by “anger, impulses, social media posts, multiple course-changes in direction and an underpinning desire from Trump to win the Nobel Peace Prize.” This perceived lack of strategic clarity from its primary ally exacerbates Europe’s anxieties.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, while maintaining a diplomatic approach, has firmly rejected any territorial concessions, stating on Thursday that Ukraine would not accept a peace deal negotiated solely by the United States and Russia, and expressing that it was “not pleasant” that Trump spoke with Putin before contacting Kyiv, which challenges the long-standing Western policy of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.”
5.EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has warned specifically against a “quick fix” or a “dirty deal” to end the war, reiterating that Europe and Ukraine must be at the table. She stressed that “any deal behind our backs will not work,” and that “appeasement also always, always fails.” This firm position underlines the European resolve to continue backing Ukraine, regardless of external pressures.
The US Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, has signaled a dramatically different approach to any future security arrangements. He informed NATO allies in Brussels that European and non-European troops – notably, not Americans – would be expected to police any agreement between Ukraine and Russia. Furthermore, he delivered a brutal blow to Ukraine’s aspirations for NATO membership, stating that Washington did “not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome.” While a NATO official later clarified that the alliance’s position had not changed, the initial statement sent a clear message about US intentions regarding military commitments in the region.
Lithuanian Defence Minister Dovilė Šakalienė highlighted Europe’s substantial financial contribution, noting that Europe provided Ukraine with US$125 billion in aid last year, compared to the US$88 billion from the United States. “I think we earned a place at the table,” she stated, underscoring the continent’s significant investment and stake in the conflict. For the Baltic counterparts, situated directly on Russia’s borders, the turn of events is particularly alarming, presenting a stark choice: to succumb to the illusion of a Trump-Putin solution, which she termed a “deadly trap,” or to fully embrace Europe’s own economic, financial, and military capacity.
6.The challenge, however, is that ramping up defense industries, investing in new technology, and recruiting personnel are not overnight processes. As Éric Trappier, head of French defence giant Dassault, observed last year, “Europe believes all of a sudden that working on defence is a good thing… Between that realisation and the reality of building a European defence industry it’s going to take many years and even many decades.” This sentiment was echoed by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who lamented, “We are not producing enough and this is a collective problem… Russia is producing in three months in ammunition, but the whole of the alliance is producing in a year.”
Compounding these difficulties are the internal challenges within Europe itself, including arcane decision-making processes in Brussels and the expectation of increased defense spending amidst sluggish growth and tight public finances. The legacy of defense cutbacks that followed the evaporation of the Soviet bloc in 1989 is only now beginning to be reversed, a process that demands substantial and sustained commitment.
Volodymyr Zelensky has also highlighted the significant disparity in manpower, noting that Ukraine and Europe together possess fewer men under arms than Russia. He has expressed deep skepticism about the efficacy of a peacekeeping force without American involvement, stating, “I don’t think any UN troops or anything like that have ever really helped anyone,” and emphasizing that without America, effective security guarantees are “impossible.” Instead of a contingent of maybe 5,000 peacekeepers, Zelensky believes there would need to be 100,000 as part of a “deterrent package.”
7.Some European ministers harbor grave concerns that Trump may fundamentally misunderstand Putin’s intentions, with German defense minister Boris Pistorius regretting the new administration’s swift removal of Ukraine’s prospective NATO membership from consideration and issuing a stark warning that “Putin is constantly provoking the West and attacking us again. It would be naive to believe the threat would actually diminish after such a peace agreement.” This sentiment reflects a deep-seated conviction that appeasement only emboldens Moscow.
Moscow, predictably, has relished Europe’s apparent marginalization, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov mockingly remarking to CNN that “many in the West, including the leaders of the European Union, were shocked when a simple, normal conversation took place between two polite, educated individuals,” a comment that underscores the Kremlin’s satisfaction with what it perceives as a growing rift within the transatlantic alliance, a division it has long aimed to exploit.
In this critical juncture, Europeans are inevitably reminded of past existential moments in their modern history, such as the Munich Agreement of 1938, which emboldened Adolf Hitler’s aggression, and the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, which crushed the Prague Spring, a liberalization effort seen by Moscow as a direct challenge to its dominance, much like Ukraine’s alignment with the EU.
During a similar historical period, US Senator Henry Jackson informed NATO parliamentarians that while the Atlantic Alliance’s value was clear in the US, there was “a widespread feeling in my country that so many Europeans were less concerned with the security of their homelands than we were,” adding that “to many Americans it has seemed that a prosperous Western Europe was not making a reasonably proportionate contribution to the common defence effort,” and his conviction that “the future vitality of the alliance depends in very large measure on the degree and quality of European efforts to keep NATO strong” resonates strongly today as the Trump administration urges European allies to increase their defense spending.
8.Yet, this period has also served as a profound wake-up call, catalyzing a significant reversal of decades of military underfunding across the continent. Lithuania, for instance, is planning to lay mines on its bridges to Russia, preparing to detonate them should Kremlin tanks attempt to cross. In the nearby Baltic Sea, NATO ships are actively hunting Russia’s so-called “Shadow Fleet,” accused of severing undersea communications cables. Concurrently, there are ambitious plans to construct a vast missile defense system across Europe, akin to Israel’s “Iron Dome,” but explicitly designed to intercept rockets launched by Moscow.
Beyond military hardware, the mindset across Europe has shifted dramatically. Sweden updated its “If Crisis or War Comes” booklet, distributing 5 million copies to households. Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, former commander of the U.S. Army in Europe, notes that countries in Eastern Europe “know that this is for real, because they live there.” President Emmanuel Macron of France has termed Trump’s second term a “wake-up call” for the continent, and EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has unequivocally stated that “Russia poses an existential threat to our security today, tomorrow and for as long as we underinvest in our defense.”
This newfound resolve is translating into tangible action. Most of Europe’s major powers are now meeting the NATO guideline of 2% of GDP spent on defense, a commitment that began to accelerate after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, and notably intensified under Trump’s prodding. Lithuania, particularly vulnerable due to its proximity to Russia, intends to elevate its defense spending to an unprecedented 5% to 6% of its GDP in the coming years, significantly surpassing even Washington’s current proportional contribution.
The full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has further concentrated minds. The European Union has allocated 500 million euros to double shell ammunition production to 2 million units per year. Furthermore, 22 countries have joined the European Sky Shield Initiative, a continent-wide missile defense system designed specifically to protect against Russian attacks. A spokesperson for the bloc, when asked about preparations for a worst-case scenario of war with Russia, stated: “Europe must be prepared for the most extreme military contingencies… Put simply: to prevent war we need to spend more. If we wait more, it’ll cost us more.”
9.In western Scandinavia, Norway has updated its emergency preparedness booklet, advising citizens on stockpiling essentials for “acts of war.” Swedish church authorities, guided by the armed forces, are actively seeking additional cemetery space should conflict reach their shores. Even Germany, a traditionally more pacifist nation, has committed approximately 100 million euros to reinstate public sirens that had been removed after the fall of the Iron Curtain, a symbolic yet potent gesture of a changing threat perception.
Yet, for all these efforts, some observers believe Europe is still not doing enough. Keir Giles, a leading defense analyst at Chatham House, contends that Western European countries like Germany, France, and the United Kingdom have only committed “small percentage uplifts to defense budgets, which is nothing like the transformative investment” seen in Eastern Europe. He suggests that “countries further away are still pretending that war is something that happens to other people,” highlighting a persistent psychological divide across the continent. This is further complicated by the rise of populist parties in Europe, often blending anti-immigration stances with a softer, even friendly, approach towards Russia, potentially undermining a unified front.
Europe is at a critical historical moment, where its sovereignty and security are balanced in a complex geopolitical landscape. The prospect of reaching an agreement without active European participation is heart wrenching, reminding us of the urgent need for Europe to speak out with a stronger and more unified voice on the world stage. As Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna strongly declared, “If borders can be changed by force, then none are safe. Sovereignty and territorial integrity are the cornerstones of global stability. We will not reward aggression, whether in Ukraine or anywhere else.” The European continent is prepared and determined to shape its own destiny in an increasingly turbulent world, understanding that “no one who is not worried has noticed. In fact, its future depends on it.
