Washington’s Fallout, Europe’s Opportunity: How the U.S.-Ukraine Rift Strengthened Europe’s Hand
Just a day after his dramatic and highly public clash with President Trump in the Oval Office, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky arrived in London to a hero’s welcome. The contrast was stark—where Washington had offered him cold indifference and open hostility, Europe responded with warm embraces, carefully choreographed displays of solidarity, and a strategic eagerness to fill the void left by the U.S.-Ukraine fallout.
For European leaders, particularly British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, the breakdown of U.S.-Ukraine relations was less a crisis and more an opportunity. In Washington, there had been real fear that Ukraine’s alignment might shift toward a trilateral process between Kyiv, Moscow, and Trump’s America, one that could sideline European interests entirely. Instead, Zelensky’s misstep with Trump forced him back into the arms of European powers, giving them the leverage they had sought in shaping the course of the war and its eventual resolution.
The London Summit, orchestrated by Starmer, signaled Europe’s intent to reassert itself as a key player in negotiations, ensuring that any future settlement reflects European priorities. But beneath the diplomatic pleasantries, one question loomed large: was this embrace of Ukraine genuine, or was it political opportunism masquerading as support, with Europe exploiting Kyiv’s weakened position for its own strategic gains?
The Rift Europe Needed
For Europe, Zelensky’s visit to Washington was fraught with unease. The looming prospect of a U.S.-Ukraine-Russia trilateral process threatened to push European interests to the margins. Had Ukraine signed the minerals deal with the U.S., and a channel of communication opened between Moscow, Washington, and Kyiv, European interests would have found no place on the table. As the talks between Zelensky and Trump collapsed, however, and tensions spilled into open confrontation, Starmer and Macron struck the expected notes of concern, struggling to conceal their quiet delight behind rehearsed vows to mend the situation.
Europe had become increasingly sidelined in the Ukraine-Russia conflict as the U.S. and Russia reengaged after President Trump’s inauguration. Habitually reliant on American guidance, Europe had grown accustomed to aligning its foreign policy with Washington and the sudden shift in direction after Biden’s term caught Europe largely off guard. Having been coaxed into the overtly confrontational approach toward Russia by the former US administration, and implemented this policy for three years, it stood at a crossroads of either shifting its policy in line with the US or sticking to its adversarial approach, and it chose the latter. Partly to assert its independence from US policy, and partly driven by growing interests in the outcome of the war, Europe’s position stood at odds with the new American administration.
With the growing divergence with the American stance, Europe mobilized to maintain relevance, and sought to find a way to claw its way back to the negotiating table to secure its interests and ensure that it was not left out of post-war calculations. Zelensky’s spat with Trump opened this door. As Zelensky walked out of the Oval Office with the minerals deal unsigned, Europe found a chance to reclaim relevance and position itself as an indispensable bridge between Kyiv and Washington while advancing its own strategic interests.
As the Ukrainian president landed in London, received by warm hugs and reassuring rhetoric of unwavering support and commitment to Ukraine’s victory in stark contrast to the reception he received in Washington, he effectively cornered himself into a position of increased dependence on Europe. Rather than strategically managing the differences between the American and European positions to maximize support from both, leveraging the Trump administration’s open channel of communication with Moscow while garnering support from his continental neighbors -who would have had to redouble their efforts to prove their continued relevance- he opted instead to place his country almost entirely in Europe’s orbit.
London Summit
Starmer’s summit was carefully stage-managed with a carefully curated list of invitees in attendance, mirroring Macron’s efforts last month. The summit aimed to consolidate a joint stance ahead of the broader EU summit later this week, building on both the Paris and Kyiv summits, both of which did not include American representation.
Beneath the carefully curated optics of unity, however, the fractures within Europe’s leadership shone through the veil. France floated the idea of a month-long ceasefire—an idea the UK didn’t buy in to, while Ukraine, as expected, dismissed the notion outright, demanding security guarantees to prevent future Russian violations.
The divergence on several issues exposed the fact that beyond providing support for Ukraine in the form of continued sanctions on Russia and increased defense spending, Europe has yet to formulate a cohesive collective policy toward the war and the next steps necessary. The disagreements included whether European peacekeeping troops would be deployed to Ukraine, and even ventured into the use of frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort. The UK already set the stage for this on Sunday evening when it pledged a loan to Ukraine that will be repaid using Russian assets—resembling a political Three-Card Monte; London secures political credit for its ‘generosity’ while spending nothing of its own, all under the guise of unwavering support for Kyiv.
Starmer’s call for a ‘coalition of the willing’ echoes the rhetoric of the 2003 Iraq War, but in a context where military intervention is far less viable. Moscow has already rejected any NATO or EU-led presence, although Trump did mention that Putin was open to the idea of some peacekeeping forces. Balancing between the two opposing perspectives, European mistrust of Russian reinvasion of Ukraine in the future, and Russia’s mistrust of Europe using their peacekeepers as a cover to introduce NATO armaments to Ukraine remains a complicated prospect.
At the end of the meeting, Starmer issued a Chair’s Statement. This format, rather than a joint communique on behalf of all attendees tacitly implies that the summit failed to produce a fully unified stance moving forward toward the broader EU summit later this week. Instead of a decisive policy blueprint, it was a collection of familiar talking points, full support for Ukraine, a warning against ‘weak deals,’ and assurances that Europe would move forward in coordination with the U.S.
Europe’s Endgame
History offers plenty of cautionary tales about trusting former European colonial powers, and Ukraine may soon find itself providing another. Far from the rose-colored spectacles through which European leaders are trying to portray their involvement in Ukraine -defense of liberty and democracy and vague notions of joint values- there are real, tangible and important interests that they are targeting in Ukraine.
These include ensuing energy security through access to Ukraine’s large reserves of natural gas, gaining access to Ukraine’s evolving weapons technology, including drones, to support European defense industries, and expanding the markets for its defense producers. The war provides an opportunity not just to arm Ukraine but to test, refine, and market European weapons, proving their effectiveness for potential buyers.
If it succeeds in those goals, when the war eventually ends, Europe’s strengthened position will be a direct result of this strategic recalibration, diversifying energy sources, reinforcing its defense sector, and ensuring Ukraine -with its energy reserves- remains economically tethered to the European bloc. European leaders would have done their jobs.
The war and the shifted American position also provide an excellent opportunity for Europe to justify their investment into upscaled defense industry and reinforces the need for collective European defense architecture. By framing Russia as an existential threat to Europe, leaders can justify their efforts to recalibrate continental defense strategies and expand the defense industry footprint in the continent.
In parallel to the collective interests being served by the ongoing conflict, and the growing rift with the U.S., Europe’s internal power struggle is coming to the surface. Publicly, they maintain a united front; privately, their competing summits in Paris and London expose their rivalry. France leans on diplomatic maneuvering and defense initiatives, while the UK positions itself as the indispensable transatlantic bridge. Germany, for now absent from the fray, will inevitably join once its new leadership stabilizes, setting the stage for an intensified contest for European primacy to fill the void left by American withdrawal.
In this context, Zelensky’s miscalculations put Ukraine in an increasingly precarious position for its long-term prospects. Drawn in by Europe’s rhetoric of unwavering support, he has overlooked the transactional nature of their backing, and increased Ukraine’s long-term dependence. Instead of broadening his support base, he has narrowed it by positioning himself too closely to Europe and widening the berth between himself and the American administration. This was both a diplomatic fumble and reflects a lack of strategic vision.
For Europe, prolonging the war serves multiple strategic interests. The longer Ukraine struggles, the more reliant it becomes on European funding and infrastructure, ensuring that post-war negotiations, on energy, defense contracts, and economic integration, favor European priorities. For EU leaders, the more dependent Ukraine is, the easier it will be to dictate terms in the post-war order. In Kyiv, Ursula Von Der Leyen, EU commission president, was excited at the prospect of gaining access to Ukraine’s natural gas reserves (1 hr 42 mins into the video).
At the core of this conflict are some fundamental realities. Russia will not retreat from its core demands, which it considers issues of national security, prime among them Ukraine’s NATO membership. With the U.S., Hungary, and Slovakia opposing Ukraine’s NATO membership, Kyiv’s accession remains unlikely for the foreseeable future. Europe may be attempting to stall the war long enough to outlast a Trump presidency, hoping for a Biden like administration to return to revive NATO expansion, although that may be wishful thinking. This outlook also does little to reduce the prospect of broader war, on the contrary it risks prolonging it indefinitely or even sparking a wider conflict and far more destructive conflict.
Meanwhile, British and French posturing about deploying troops, a move impossible without U.S. approval, is less about military action and more about keeping tensions high to solidify Europe’s position and buy time to consolidate a collective stance.
If Zelensky fails to navigate these dynamics, Ukraine risks falling into the historical trap of European dependency suffered by many other countries around the world, and from which they are now gradually disentangling themselves. If he plays his cards wrong, he may lead his country into a position where its resources fuel European economies while it remains locked in perpetual reliance, never truly reaping the benefits of its own sovereignty.
While the U.S. approach has been overtly transactional, Europe’s strategy risks making Ukraine permanently dependent on European life support. Kyiv’s belief that Europe represents the "good guys" plays directly into Europe’s hands, allowing it to dictate terms under the guise of solidarity. Of course, Ukraine’s history with Moscow—marked by overt Russian aggression—has left little room for trust, but that does not mean Europe’s embrace is to be taken at face value.
For Ukraine, the war was always about survival, but for Europe, it has increasingly become about positioning. What began as a show of unity has unraveled into a battlefield of competing interests, where Britain and France maneuver for dominance, Germany prepares to enter the fray, and the EU as a whole seeks leverage over both Washington and Moscow. With Zelensky’s every misstep, Ukraine’s options shrink, while Europe, Washington and Moscow secure their own future at Kyiv’s expense. The longer this war drags on, the clearer it becomes: when the dust settles, the real victors will be those who shape the post-war order, and Europe is determined not to let Washington claim it uncontested.