US President Donald Trump announced that he intends to talk about “peace in Ukraine” with Russian President Vladimir Putin at a conference held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The encounter between the two leaders could have some results, as did the summit in Helsinki in 2018.
But what’s important is that the bomb against Trump’s announcement has had a conversation in Europe about what to do with its increasingly unreliable allies. The fact that the American president can reflect on the grand geopolitical bargains of Europe on the head of Europe, as well as the prospect of being left alone to deal with hostile and aggressive Russia. It made many thorns tremble.
The debate about how to respond to this predicament appears to be divided into two ways of thinking.
It assumes that the only realistic option is to hold the US tighter than ever, in the hopes that a strategic withdrawal will never take place. It means ignoring Trump’s rhetorical attitude, smacking his Siberian-sized ego when necessary, and meeting some of the requests he is making.
To please the US president, some have proposed significantly reducing tariffs on US-made cars and purchasing large quantities of liquefied natural gas from across the Atlantic. Everyone agrees that European countries should spend more on the arms of the US, especially the US. I am eager to do so, especially with the eastern side of the European Union. Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania have already joined the queue to acquire the F-35, the cutting edge fighter jet of US defense manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
Ukraine is also a proud member of the group. Ukrainian President Voldy Mee Zelensky began courting Trump before winning the US election in November. His pitch, which granted access to Ukraine’s important minerals, appears to have appealed to the US president himself as the condition that “make America great again” (Maga);
Sure enough, Zelenskyy was not given a heads-up on the US president’s call with Putin. The sense of betrayal is real. At a security conference in Munich earlier this week, the Ukrainian president called for European unity with a clear responsibilities in the divisive speech given by Trump’s vice president JD Vance.
But Zelenskyy will continue to lobby with the infamous Mercury Trump to shape the US position, as well as the old-fashioned Republicans of the US administration, including the US Secretary of State and national security adviser Mike Waltz. In Munich, the Ukrainian president met with a group of Republican senators, including Lindsey Graham, who called for an expansion of US support for Ukrainian forces.
The Kremlin and Maga crowds seem to believe that there are few or few Ukrainians. But the other three years of war show. For the ceasefire to work, Ukraine must purchase and attend the table. This is the Point Zelensky, which was made very clear in Munich.
That said, it is unlikely that Trump will respond to Kiev. Reducing support is the direction of policy he embraces, and his voters are following it.
That is why there is a second idea in Europe that calls for an end to Europe’s dependence on the United States. A longtime supporter of the position is French President Emmanuel Macron. In a recent interview with the Financial Times, Macron updated the demands of strategic autonomy in key domains such as defense and technology. The AI Summit, held in Paris earlier this month, shows momentum in this direction, along with the EU’s determination to create fierce resistance in a future tariff war with the United States.
Macron was also the first European leader to have the idea of sending European troops to Ukraine. He doesn’t think that EU members and the UK could send up to 200,000, but the numbers Zelensky mentioned are so many, as far as France is concerned.
Macron sees Trump’s initiative as an opportunity for Europeans to “get up their muscles” and become safety guarantors. Therefore, Ukraine could become a European path to global relevance.
Certainly, this vision has many potential weaknesses. Macron is vulnerable within the country, and who will take over him at the Elysee Palace is a pending question. Germany is less than Hawkish, likely to be ruled by the central right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) after the February 23rd election. The populist challenge to Super Power Europe can also throw sand into the wheels.
The European military is incapable and is over-related to the United States. The budget is also nervous, raising the classic gun and the burning dilemma. The German debt brake, which is clearly reluctant to revisit the CDU, doesn’t make the issue even better. In addition to the mix, there are also long-term concerns related to productivity growth, innovation and technological development highlighted in a September report by former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi. That’s all about the sloppy hope that Europe can play in the same league as the US and China.
The EU struggles to emerge as a superpower on the world stage, but reliance on the US is unsustainable. Trump’s “America First” policy will inevitably continue to tweak Europeans more and more in the direction of Macron’s preferences. The US outreach-based approach to Putin is that the old rules and practices governing transatlantic relations are not preserved.
Even for stubborn followers who protect their ties with the US, hedging is essentially a humble version of strategic autonomy – the only viable option in the long run.
Rather than a complete divorce and disbandment of NATO, hedge means oppose us as much as possible and condition our actions. Or simply pursues independent policies, regardless of what Washington thinks about issues like China, trade, or technology industry regulations.
Even going beyond Trump’s terminology, we may see more and more in the future.
The views expressed in this article are the authors themselves and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.