John Maynard Keynes famously asked: ‘When the facts change, I change my mind—what do you do, sir?’ Keynes’ question could not be more relevant today. The facts of American–Ukrainian relations had substantially changed on Friday—but is Europe changing its mind?
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s visit to the White House undoubtedly dominated the press during the weekend. After a heated debate with President Donald Trump and Vice-President JD Vance, Zelenskyy left the Oval Office prematurely, without signing the minerals deal he was supposed to seal on his trip to Washington.
Much like the media and the public, European leaders were also quick to react to the scandal. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez tweeted ‘Ukraine, Spain stands with you’, while French President Emmanuel Macron wrote: ‘There is an aggressor: Russia. There is a victim: Ukraine. We were right to help Ukraine and sanction Russia three years ago—and to keep doing so. By “we”, I mean the Americans, the Europeans, the Canadians, the Japanese, and many others.’ Friedrich Merz, who is expected to soon become Germany’s next chancellor, added: ‘We must never confuse aggressor and victim in this terrible war.’ Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk wrote: ‘dear Zelenskyy, dear Ukrainian friends, you are not alone’, while EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas added that ‘We will step up our support to Ukraine so that they can continue to fight back the aggressor. Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge.’ To the wave of support from around 30 European leaders, Zelenskyy responded in individual messages saying ‘thank you’.
‘On its own, Europe could not have provided Kyiv with the needed financial and military aid to keep Ukraine’s struggle against Russia ongoing for three years’
As most of the European leaders united behind Zelenskyy, it is important to recall whose position they did not engage with nor acknowledged—that of the United States. Rather than showing support and understanding the position of their core ally, who is also the most important guarantor of EU countries’ security, the entire European establishment ran to Zelenskyy’s aid. The ally of Europe (and NATO), however, is not Ukraine, but the United States. To a large extent, three years ago the EU chose to support Ukraine because that was Washington’s policy too. On its own, Europe could not have provided Kyiv with the needed financial and military aid to keep Ukraine’s struggle against Russia ongoing for three years. Now, that the new US administration is very clearly pursuing a different policy on Ukraine compared to its predecessor’s, Europe’s attitude should adapt too. The fact that European leaders’ messages after Friday do not signal any change in the EU’s policy demonstrates that Europe is unable or unwilling to realize that given the changed circumstances, the only way forward is to end the war on the Eastern front as soon as possible.
Unlike most other politicians on the old continent, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was one of the few who expressed support for the American administration. Writing on X, Orbán said: ‘Strong men make peace, weak men make war. Today President Trump stood bravely for peace. Even if it was difficult for many to digest. Thank you, Mr. President!’
Soon after departing from the White House, Zelenskyy flew to London, where the Downing Street greeted him by stating that it ‘retains unwavering support for Ukraine’. Radically differently from his White House welcome, Zelenskyy had a chance to meet with King Charles too, before attending Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s initiative, the ‘coalition of the willing’. Despite the media attention around the London meeting, however, the UK’s diplomatic effort is unlikely to achieve anything more than massaging Zelenskyy’s ego. After the meeting four points were put forward by European leaders—the United States demonstrably disagrees with some of these, however. One of the points included the continuation of military aid to Ukraine, while another point urged to boost Ukraine’s defence capabilities. Despite these suggestions by European leaders during the weekend, on Monday evening the US President declared to stop all military aid to Ukraine.
When declaring the pause, the White House stated: ‘The president has been clear that he is focused on peace. We need our partners to be committed to that goal as well. We are pausing and reviewing our aid to ensure that it is contributing to a solution.’ That is, the United States openly calls its ‘partners’ to focus on peace, rather than pouring oil on the flames of war with more weapon transfers. Without the United States, the EU’s and the UK’s military—and financial—capabilities are not enough to provide sufficient aid to Ukraine, so Europe must adapt to the new circumstances if they want to have a say in the peace deal.
The objectives of the London summit not only demonstrably failed to meet with Washington’s changing reality, but also exposed how divided Starmer’s ‘coalition’ is. While French President Emmanuel Macron left London detailing plans for a month-long truce in Ukraine, Kier Starmer cautiously reminded that such a truce could go ahead only after it was discussed with the United States. On top of the already inconvenient situation, on Monday morning the UK’s armed forces minister also played down Macron’s idea, insisting that ‘no agreement has been made on what a truce looks like’.
While Europe simultaneously opposes its main ally’s new policy and struggles to put together a functioning alternative coalition, Kyiv is digging itself into a deep hole. Shortly after the prematurely ended White House visit, Zelenskyy refused to concede that he owns President Trump an apology. Later, in an interview to the Associated Press Zelenskyy argued that the end of the war is ‘still very, very far away’—a statement President Donald Trump strongly condemned. Albeit Secretary of State Marco Rubio also called for Zelenskyy to apologize for the heated dispute at the Oval Office, on Tuesday evening Zelenskyy said nothing more than that the Oval Office meeting was ‘regrettable’ and that it ‘did not go the way it was supposed to be’, reiterating that he is willing to sign the minerals deal. As of now, it remains an open question whether Zelenskyy’s half-hearted ‘apology’ can save the day.
Related articles:
