Europe faces a new situation for the first time post WW II. Ever since World War II, Europe has stood up to Russia by relying on its big brother, the United States. But now it is confronted by a strongman in the White House, as well as one in the Kremlin, Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Whether Europe can stand up to the U.S. and Russia at the same time is the central question facing select leaders French President Emmanuel Macron has invited to a summit in Paris on Monday. It will not be easy. Europe is weak and divided. But European Union countries, as well as those outside the bloc such as the United Kingdom, may be yet able to hold their own if they work together decisively.
Europe’s perilous position has become crystal clear over the past week. Trump called Putin to kick off peace talks over Ukraine before phoning its president Volodymyr Zelenskiy. The U.S. envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, then made clear that America sees no role for Europe in the peace talks which will begin in Saudi Arabia this week. The risk is that Trump will agree a deal that amounts to capitulation by Kyiv – and present it as a fait accompli.
Meanwhile, U.S defence secretary Pete Hegseth told European NATO allies they would have to assume greater responsibility for their own security as the United States was no longer “primarily focussed” on it. Then U.S. Vice President JD Vance accused Europe’s governments of censoring free speech and far-right politicians. As if that was not enough, Trump threatened “reciprocal” tariffs against all countries that charge higher trade levies than the U.S. This could hit Europe hard given that the president wrongly views value-added taxes, which are high in Europe, as equivalent to tariffs.
PLAN A AND B
Europe’s top priority should be to stop Trump selling Ukraine down the river. Although its chance of doing that is slim, its best bet is to commit to provide the lion’s share of the security support that Ukraine will need if there is a ceasefire pact – but only if European countries and Kyiv agree to the deal.
There are two obvious difficulties with such an approach. One is that European nations do not have many troops – and some such as Poland want to keep their soldiers at home to defend against a possible attack from Russia. Another is that Putin will say “no” – and Trump may accede to his Russian counterpart’s demands.
So while it is worth Europe trying to stiffen the U.S. president’s spine, it needs a fallback plan if Trump tries to impose a deal that Ukraine finds unacceptable. Europe’s least bad bet, in this scenario, would be to step up its military and financial support for Kyiv.
This Plan B has two problems of its own. One is that Europe will struggle to fill the gap if the Trump administration abandons Ukraine. The continent is not producing arms nearly rapidly enough to replace American supplies and will struggle to replicate military capabilities such as the last-minute intelligence that the United States gives Ukraine to help it target Russian forces accurately. Even if Europe tries its best, Kyiv could still end up losing the war.
Another problem is that Trump may get angry with Europe if it undermines a deal with Putin. The president may lift U.S. sanctions on Russia, which would help the Kremlin refill its war chest. He may also threaten European leaders that they are on their own in the event of a Russian attack.
All that said, Trump will want to avoid the impression he is ditching Ukraine while Europe stands by it – and that may just persuade him to hang tough in negotiations. But Europe cannot count on this. So it will also need to develop a Plan C.
PLAN C
If other options fail, the best move for European nations would be to build an effective European leg of NATO that could deter a Russian attack even if the United States abandons it. This approach would be wise whatever happens. But if Ukraine loses the war, European countries will need to act with speed and ambition as they could be Russia’s next target.
Again, there are multiple hurdles. One is that it will cost a huge amount of money. Lifting European defence spending to the average 3% of economic output that many now consider the minimum will cost at least an extra $2.1 trillion, in today’s money, over the next decade. Another is that the buildup will take many years during which the continent would be vulnerable.
Then there is the question of whether European countries are prepared to pool their sovereignty to make this happen. Europe would need to simplify, streamline and scale up its defence production, Friedrich Merz, the German opposition leader whose party is the frontrunner in the country’s upcoming general elections told the Munich Security Conference, where Vance and Kellogg also delivered their harsh messages. But that would mean scrapping many sub-scale national programmes.
The thorniest question would be whether Europe would still benefit from the protection of a nuclear umbrella if it cannot rely on the United States. Although France and Britain have nuclear weapons, it is far from certain they would be willing to use them if Russia attacked other countries.
Finally, Europe would have to hold together while executing such a complex high-stakes plan. This will be hard given the rise in many European countries of right-wing nationalist parties, which are opposed to greater unity.
Team BharatShakti
(With Inputs from Reuters)
