T
he meeting between Donald Trump, Volodymyr Zelensky, and JD Vance in the Oval Office was a stark reminder that Washington's commitment to Europe's security is no longer unconditional. Trump's reluctance to provide aid to Ukraine without concessions has shattered the assumption that the US will indefinitely underwrite European security. The transactional nature of Trump's diplomacy has left European leaders stunned, realizing they may need to reassess their role in the conflict.
For years, Europeans have relied on Washington's lead on Ukraine, assuming US support would remain steadfast. However, Trump's presidency has forced them to reevaluate their strategy. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has convened an emergency summit in London, signaling that Europe may need to step up if American aid diminishes. Yet, Europe lacks the military-industrial capacity to sustain Ukraine's war effort at the scale Washington has.
The shift in US priorities also has significant implications for global resource and economic structures. Trump's insistence on securing access to Ukraine's mineral resources reflects a reversion to economic realism, where territorial disputes are resolved through economic carve-outs rather than ideological commitments. This approach could reshape global supply chains, reducing Europe's access to Ukrainian resources and limiting China's ability to dominate rare-earth production.
The weakening of Western-led multilateral institutions, particularly NATO and the EU, marks a structural shift in global governance. Trump's willingness to bypass these mechanisms in favor of direct US-Russia negotiations undermines the post-WWII order. This move parallels historical instances of unilateralism, where major powers dictate international settlements without institutional oversight.
The implications of this trend extend beyond Ukraine, as smaller states may find themselves increasingly vulnerable in a world where global decision-making becomes the domain of a few dominant actors rather than a broad-based institutional consensus. The shift could redefine how territorial conflicts, economic disputes, and geopolitical crises are managed in the decades to come.
A US-Russia détente could fundamentally alter the European security order, diminishing NATO's centrality and reviving a 19th-century-style balance-of-power diplomacy where major powers dictate settlements without the involvement of smaller nations. China, which has benefited from US-Russia hostility, now faces strategic recalibration as Beijing's leverage over Moscow is weakened.
Europe's long-discussed aspiration for strategic autonomy is being put to the test. The EU's fragmented defence capabilities and divergent national interests make a unified security response unlikely. However, recent foreign policy interventions by Trump will have five key structural changes globally: a reconfiguration of US-Russia relations, China's strategic recalibration, Europe's urgent need for strategic autonomy, a shift in global resource and economic structures, and the weakening of Western-led multilateral institutions.
