Författare: Jessica Genauer Senior Lecturer in International Relations F

On March 3, US President Donald Trump paused all US military aid to Ukraine. This move was apparently triggered by a heated exchange a few days earlier between Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office.

In response, European Union leaders have now committed to rearm Europe by mobilising €800 billion (about A$1.4 trillion) in defence spending.

26 of the EU leaders (excluding Hungary) signed an agreement that peace for Ukraine must be accompanied by “robust and credible” security guarantees.

They agreed there can be no negotiations on Ukraine without Ukraine’s participation. It was also agreed the EU will continue to provide regular military and non-military support to Ukraine.

This jump in defence spending is unprecedented for the EU, with 2024 spending hitting a previous record high of €326 billion (A$558 billion).

At the same time, the United Kingdom has committed to the biggest increase in defence spending since the Cold War.

The EU’s united front will create strong defences and deter a direct attack on EU nations.

However, for Ukraine, it will not lead to a military victory in its war with Russia. While Europe has stepped up funding, this is not sufficient for Ukraine to defeat Russian forces currently occupying about 20% of the country.

For Ukraine, the withdrawal of US support will severely strain their ability to keep fighting. Ukraine will likely need to find a way to freeze the conflict this year. This may mean a temporary truce that does not formally cede Ukrainian territory to Russia.

A Trumpian worldview

The vastly different approaches of the US under Trump and the EU point to a deeper ideological divide.

While the Trump administration has acted more quickly and assertively in foreign affairs than many expected, its approach is not surprising.

Since Trump won the US presidential election in November last year, Europe and Ukraine have known that a shift in US policy would be on the cards.

Trump’s approach to Ukraine is not only about economic concerns and withdrawing US military aid. It is about a deeper, more significant clash of worldviews.

US President Donald Trump halted military aid to Ukraine after a now-notorious press conference.
JIM LO SCALZO/EPA

Trump (and, it appears, his core support base) hold a “great power politics” approach to world affairs.

This approach assumes we live in a competitive world where countries are motivated to maximise gains and dominate. Outcomes can be achieved through punishments or rewards.

Countries with greater military or economic strength “count” more. They are expected to impose their will on weaker countries. This viewpoint underpinned much of the colonial activity of the 19th and 20th centuries.

This worldview expects conflict – and it expects stronger countries to “win”.

Consistent with Trump’s outlook, Russia is a regional power that has the “right” to control smaller countries in its neighbourhood.

Trump’s approach to Ukraine is not an anomaly. Nor is it a temporary and spontaneous measure to grab the global spotlight.

Trump’s worldview leads to the logical and consistent conclusion that Russia will seek to control countries within its sphere of influence.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine represented an attempt to impose its will on a militarily weaker country that it considered to be in its rightful domain of control.

The EU alternative

Contrary to this view, the EU is founded on the premise that countries can work together for mutual gains through collaboration and consensus. This approach underpins the operation of what are called the Bretton Woods Institutions created in the aftermath of World War II.

This worldview expects collaboration rather than conflict. Mutually beneficial and cooperative solutions are found through dialogue and negotiation.

The agreement sees an unprecedented commitment for EU defence spending.
OLIVIER MATTHYS/EPA

According to this perspective, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is about a conflict between the values of a liberal democracy and those of an oppressive authoritarian regime.

Zelensky has himself consistently framed the conflict as being about a clash of values: freedom and democracy versus authoritarianism and control.

A mix of both?

Since Trump’s second inauguration, European leaders have presented a united front, motivated by facing a world where US military backing cannot be guaranteed.

However, there is internal division within European countries. Recent years has seen a sharp rise in anti-EU sentiment within EU member states. The UK’s exit from the EU is an example of this phenomenon.

EU leaders previously followed a path of cooperation with Russia, with limited success. Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, France and Germany helped mediate the Minsk Agreements. These agreements, signed in 2014 and 2015, were designed to prevent further incursions by Russian-backed groups into Ukrainian sovereign territory.

This did not prevent Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

In an emerging new world order, leadership might require going beyond the seeming contradiction of a focus on military strength or cooperation. Leaders may need to integrate both. Läs mer…

Since commencing his second term as United States president, Donald Trump has distanced the US from Ukraine and warmed relations with Russia.

This presents a predicament for European nations.

A changing landscape

Europe relies on the US for military and technology capability.

The US is responsible for more than a third of the total funds spent on defence worldwide.

It is also a critical member of the NATO security alliance and has more than 80,000 troops on the European continent.

Since January 20, the Trump administration has coupled economic isolationism with a surprisingly interventionist foreign policy agenda.

This is driven by a realist, interests-based approach to political leadership.

Trump’s actions align with a worldview that emphasises material advantage over values and ideas – the interests of great and regional powers are considered to be the only ones that matter.

The heated exchange between Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on February 28 underscored the crumbling architecture and protocols of the international rules-based order in place since the second world war.

It appears the Trump administration may expect unilateral concessions from Ukraine to Russia for peace. This would likely include ceding significant territory to Russia.

Read more:
In siding with Russia over Ukraine, Trump is not putting America first. He is hastening its decline

A rock and a hard place

Ukraine borders four EU and NATO-member countries: Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. This poses a serious security risk.

Europe’s foremost security challenge is to deter Russia from further offensive action on the continent.

European countries have a direct interest in stopping the war, because a continuing conflict presents a costly threat, draining resources in military and humanitarian aid.

According to the Kiel institute for the World Economy, since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, European countries have collectively committed more than $US138 billion ($A222 billion) in military and non-military aid.

European countries want to see an end to the war that leaves Ukraine a safe and sovereign nation state. For European countries, it is crucial that any political settlement effectively deters Russia from further incursions into Ukrainian or Eastern European territory.

Without deterrence measures in place, there is no guaranteed prevention of wider state-to-state conflict on the European continent in future.

On the one hand, Europe needs the US military and economic might. On the other hand, Europe has pressing security concerns that drive a divergence from the US in its position on Ukraine.

How far will Trump go with Russia?

A key question on European leaders’ minds is: will the NATO alliance hold if there is an incursion into NATO-member territory?

If the borders of Poland or a Baltic state are violated, NATO’s article 5 will be triggered. This article requires the collective defense by all NATO allies of any ally under attack.

This could mean the US is obliged to join a direct confrontation with Russia.

Would Trump actually commit US military support to a fight with Russia? Or would the US abandon their NATO treaty obligations?

Trump’s rhetoric and actions so far suggest European countries should prepare for the latter possibility.

Read more:
How Trump’s spat with Zelensky threatens the security of the world – including the US

Strategic autonomy and deterrence

Given this dilemma, Europe needs to focus on strategic autonomy and deterrence.

Strategic autonomy includes not only defence, but also economics, environment, energy and values.

In terms of defence, strategic autonomy means Europe taking more responsibility for its own security. Former European Defence Agency chief Jorge Domecq notes this includes having the ability to “develop, operate, modify and maintain the full spectrum of defence capabilities”.

Effective deterrence of further Russian aggression on the continent requires providing substantive security guarantees to Ukraine. This may include a multilateral security structure for European countries (without the US) that could guarantee Ukraine’s security.

The idea of a European Army has also reemerged. This would go beyond defence cooperation to full military and strategic integration. Such an entity could underpin a European peacekeeping force in Ukraine.

At a summit in London on March 2, EU countries and the UK proposed a one-month truce that could be followed by European troops on the ground in Ukraine to maintain the peace.

What does Ukraine want from Europe?

A Gallup survey in late 2024 suggests the percentage of Ukrainians who want a negotiated end to the war has increased from about 20% in early 2022 to more than 50% in late 2024.

Over the same period, those who favour fighting for a military solution has declined from more than 70% to just under 40%.

The same survey revealed most Ukrainians prefer a key role for the EU in negotiations (70%) and the UK (63%), with less than half preferring a significant role from Trump.

Interestingly, more than 40% supported a central role for Turkey in negotiations.

China: a country to watch

China’s approach to Russia and the war could have an impact on Europe’s security and political stability.

China is mostly concerned with domestic economic growth and regime stability, and it has not directly involved itself in the war in Ukraine.

However, China is a close friend of Russia and a security ally of North Korea, which is currently fighting in the Kursk province of Russia against Ukrainian forces.

In 2023, China put forward its own “peace plan” proposal for Ukraine.

A rapprochement between the US and Russia may be viewed unfavourably by China which could see this as a threat to its own regional geopolitical influence.

China maintains significant influence over Russian President Vladimir Putin due to economic and security ties.

If China senses a fundamental shift in the international order, it may become more assertive in attempting to influence Russia and the trajectory of the war in Ukraine.

For Europe, distancing from the US may mean getting closer to China.

However, this comes with its own risks. Läs mer…