Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free
Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world
The latest crisis in US-Ukraine relations strongly echoes the darkest days of 2025. The infamous televised confrontation in the Oval Office between JD Vance, Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy crystallized fears that America was now on Russia’s side. These concerns have returned with a vengeance with the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska.
European leaders responded to these previous crises by whispering decisiveness toward Trump. They welcomed Zelensky and taught him to be grateful and conciliatory in his dealings with the American president. And they inundated Trump with phone calls and flattery, aiming to smooth over the worst rough edges of American politics.
This time things seem different. Zelensky is much less restrained in his remarks towards Trump. He directly accused the United States of limiting satellite services in Ukraine and suggested that Trump was attracted to autocrats. The Ukrainians also defied the US demand to stop hitting Russian energy facilities. This weekend saw some of the largest strikes ever against St. Petersburg oil facilities.
Zelensky’s outspoken statements may be motivated, in large part, by anger and exasperation. But there is also probably a calculation behind his change in tone. As Trump weakens in the polls and Republicans appear headed for defeat in the midterm elections, it might be worth appealing to Americans over the heads of the president and his acolytes. During the election campaign, even some Republican candidates questioned Trump’s plan to buy Russian diesel. Polls suggest that Americans do not share Trump’s admiration for Vladimir Putin.
A significant shift is also underway in the European approach to Russia. There is a growing consensus in European capitals that the continent’s leaders can no longer tolerate a situation in which only Americans talk to Putin. Channels with the Russians are already open and a call between European leaders and Putin could take place soon.
The shift in approach reflects a belief that Trump’s whispers are increasingly ineffective — particularly given the president’s concerns about the midterm elections and his anger over what he sees as Europe’s failure to help him in Iran. Europeans also fear that U.S. policy is largely driven by a desire to strike trade deals with Russia rather than a coherent security vision.
The European approach is currently based on two pillars: support for Ukraine and sanctions against Russia. Both policies are seen as crucial, especially as U.S. support for Ukraine weakens. But direct European involvement in peacemaking efforts is also increasingly seen as a necessity – especially since it is European money that is keeping Ukraine afloat, after US financial aid was cut off.
Europeans seem confident in Putin’s willingness to talk. But the Russian leader himself is said to have floated the idea of a three-way summit between himself, Trump and China’s Xi Jinping. This kind of summit would play into Russia’s great power pretensions – and keep Ukraine and its key supporters out of the room.
Russian distrust of dialogue with Europeans could be increased by the type of proposals that could be put on the table. If and when European negotiations with Putin take place, the Russian leader will likely be offered two possible paths to peace. The first is to freeze the conflict on the current Line of Control – and in return obtain a guarantee that Ukraine will never join NATO. The second option would be for Ukraine to cede the rest of Donbass to Russia – but then join NATO.
Both choices would be considered a betrayal by some in Ukraine. But given his country’s strong desire for peace, Zelensky might be able to get either idea accepted. Europeans are much less convinced that Putin is prepared to accept either. But they still believe it is important to start talking directly with the Russians.
Alongside the diplomatic overhaul, Europe is also increasingly determined to become less dependent on America for crucial capabilities – particularly the satellite coverage provided by Starshield and Starlink. Two Finnish companies – Nokia and Iceye – this month announced a partnership to develop satellite communications networks for military and civilian purposes. But the first launches are not expected before 2028, so this cannot solve Ukraine’s immediate problems.
For now, the Zelensky government remains highly dependent on U.S. satellite capabilities, both to defend against imminent attacks and to provide information for offensive operations. Indeed, the Ukrainians have not lost hope that they can persuade the United States to expand its satellite assistance, allowing it to target missile launch sites deep inside Russia.
The fact that Ukraine is still so dependent on US capabilities might suggest that it is in Zelensky’s interests to continue to be as obsequious as possible to Trump and Elon Musk – in the hope that they will relent and provide kyiv with the aid it needs.
Instead, the Ukrainian leader moved in the opposite direction. He even raised the possibility of the United States siding directly with Russia against Ukraine. “He went all out Carney,” is the verdict of one of the best Europeans.
This is certainly a risky strategy. But Trump left the Ukrainians with no better options.
(email protected)
Gn usa
