Vladimir Putin gains leverage as Trump shifts US stance on Europe and Ukraine, sparking concerns over exclusion of Europe from negotiations.
In Short
U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that returning Ukraine to pre-2014 borders and NATO membership are unrealistic, suggesting a shift in negotiations that may exclude Ukraine. Meanwhile, former President Trump had a significant call with Putin, indicating a willingness to lead peace talks without European consultation, raising concerns among European leaders about their role in discussions and Ukraine’s future.
Hegseth stated that a return to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders and NATO membership for Ukraine were unrealistic in negotiations.
These remarks suggested that Russia would not need to negotiate over Crimea nor consider NATO military presence a red line.
Shortly after, President Donald Trump revealed he had a “lengthy and highly productive” call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, indicating a willingness to lead peace talks without prior consultation with European leaders or Ukraine.
The announcement caught the international community off guard, sparking fears that Ukraine might be sidelined in future negotiations.
But is this really surprising? It’s evident that President Biden was Zelensky’s ally, and while the Ukrainian president remained hopeful (and had to be) that Trump would follow the same path, he likely anticipated changes once Trump took office.
Appeasement approach
For months, Trump has been promising to end the destabilising Ukraine/Russia conflict. Anyone experienced in negotiation knows you never reveal your next move to your adversary. Trump’s openness about his goals was likely seen as an indication that he understood the only way to contain Putin was to make him feel victorious.
Many are upset by this approach, arguing that ‘appeasement’ sends the wrong message to Putin and other authoritarian leaders. However, reality differs from textbook scenarios—the old saying ‘we won’t negotiate with terrorists’ doesn’t hold up when the terrorist possesses nuclear weapons. M.A.D. was intended to prevent World War III, and it has so far succeeded.
After nearly three years of stalemate and hundreds of thousands of deaths, the only way Ukraine can fully expel Russian soldiers is if the US, UK, and Europe deploy troops. But in which direction does that push the war?
What happens if Russia eliminates an entire UK or US battalion? The situation can escalate rapidly.
Those comparing Trump to Chamberlain in the 1930s are overlooking the fact that Hitler did not have nuclear weapons.
Munich conference
During a major security conference in Munich, JD Vance criticised Europe, questioning its current values. This remark did not sit well with European leaders, who expressed their dissatisfaction and raised concerns about the U.S. commitment to NATO and their involvement in regional security discussions.
For those who completely disregard NATO or Europe’s support for Ukraine over the past three years, consider this: without the defence of Ukraine, how easily might Russian troops have invaded and occupied the country by now?
At least there is still a country to recognise. Perhaps having 80% of something is preferable to having 0% of nothing.
Ahron Young is Ticker’s founder and Managing Editor.
