With Donald Trump’s inauguration approaching, EU leaders face critical decisions on how to maintain support for Ukraine amid growing divisions over future strategy and security guarantees, reports Index.hr.
In a recent EU summit on ways to maintain support for Ukraine when Donald Trump assumes office, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz expressed frustration over the repeated proposal he had long rejected. The proposal was made by Polish President Andrzej Duda, who suggested that the EU seize and use the €260 billion worth of Russian state assets frozen in European financial institutions. While this idea has backing from the U.S. and the U.K., Germany, France, and Italy have resisted it, with Scholz notably remarking, “You are not aware of how this would affect the stability of our financial markets. You didn’t even introduce the euro,” in response to Duda.
Critical Weeks Ahead
Ukraine and its European allies are facing crucial weeks ahead. Trump has repeatedly stated he would end the war within 24 hours of his inauguration on January 20, yet Russian President Vladimir Putin appears in no rush. Trump’s election rhetoric suggests he might pressure Ukraine into accepting a peace agreement heavily favorable to Moscow.
European leaders remain hopeful they can influence Trump’s thinking, but they are divided not only on increasing financial and military aid to Kyiv but also on the greater challenge of ensuring the sustainability of any peace agreement—if necessary, with their own defense guarantees. The sovereignty and independence of Ukraine are at stake, as are Europe’s long-term security interests.
Finnish President Alexander Stubb highlighted the pivotal moment, stating, “From the perspective of a small state, it is crucial that we do not limit Ukraine’s sovereign right to decide its future.”
French President Emmanuel Macron echoed this sentiment during a recent visit to Warsaw, asserting, “There is no peace in Ukraine without Ukrainians, no security in Europe without Europeans.”
A Weakened Europe
However, Europe is not in the strongest position at the negotiating table. Macron’s role is undermined by political paralysis in France, while Germany is preoccupied with federal elections and may not have a new government before summer. Economic growth is likely to be weak at best, and public finances are heavily strained across the continent.
Trump’s statements have not been encouraging for Ukraine and its allies. Positioning himself as a neutral arbitrator in a conflict where Moscow is the clear aggressor, the incoming U.S. president has often undermined Ukraine’s stance. Trump recently claimed that Ukraine had lost 400,000 soldiers, a figure swiftly refuted by President Volodymyr Zelensky. He also criticized the Biden administration’s approval for Ukraine to use U.S. weapons for long-range strikes on Russian territory, calling it a major mistake.
Despite these remarks, Ukrainian and European officials are reassured by more pragmatic signals from Trump’s advisors. Keith Kellogg, Trump’s envoy to Ukraine, praised Biden’s move to supply long-range weapons, asserting that this would give the new president leverage over Moscow.
Global Implications
According to Oleksandr Merezhko, Chairman of Ukraine’s Foreign Affairs Committee, the world seems to be at a potential turning point: “It appears we are in a transitional phase from political and electoral rhetoric to more substantial and serious policy. We can see a cautious evolution toward greater support for Ukraine.”
Merezhko has even gone as far as nominating Trump for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize. European leaders, however, remain cautious. Those who have spoken with Trump or his advisors were struck by his openness to their ideas and perspectives. Stubb noted, “They do not dictate, they listen, converse, and reflect.”
Many European officials emphasize the global dimensions of the conflict, especially with North Korean units engaged on Russia’s side. They argue that the U.S. would appear weak to China and other adversaries if Washington withdrew support from Kyiv.
Kaja Kallas, the new EU High Representative for Foreign Policy, warned, “I believe Trump wants to project his power, and if he withdraws support for Ukraine, his image will be damaged. Whatever happens, it will have clear consequences for America.”
Lack of Unity in Europe
Ukrainian President Zelensky has been pushing for increased support from the U.S. and other allies for months. He has embraced Trump’s revived foreign policy mantra of Ronald Reagan—“Peace through strength”—a message now echoed by most European leaders.
While Europeans engage in narrative games and debate higher defense spending, they struggle to devise their own contribution to any potential peace resolution in Ukraine. With the exception of Hungary and Slovakia, all EU member states, along with allies in the U.K. and Norway, are committed to supporting Ukraine, but there is no consensus on the most sensitive issue: ensuring Russia does not attack Ukraine again.
Macron also believes Europe must take greater responsibility for its own security to demonstrate this to Trump and secure a place at the negotiating table. He has consulted on security guarantees, including possible troop deployments as a deterrent against future invasions, but progress has been limited.
Other European leaders have avoided the issue of sending troops to Ukraine, considering it too sensitive or premature. “There are many questions to answer before anyone can agree to this,” said Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.
Challenges in Military Cooperation
One of the major obstacles is the scope of the European military effort. One European diplomat estimates that it would require at least 60,000 troops—highly mechanized forces needing extensive logistics and supply efforts.
Another challenge is forming a strong coalition. Germany would be highly reluctant to deploy troops for historical reasons. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk stated that Poland is already bearing the heaviest burden in supporting Kyiv and defending NATO’s eastern flank. Some, like Stubb and Frederiksen, believe that only NATO membership can guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Some diplomats argue that organizing this effort would be impossible without at least some U.S. support—particularly in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance—and the ultimate security guarantee of the U.S. nuclear umbrella.
De Hoop Scheffer from the German Marshall Fund emphasized that NATO membership for Ukraine would be the most cost-effective solution, but Trump will likely not offer membership, as this would disrupt bringing Putin to the negotiating table: “He has been very clear that Europeans will need to deploy troops on the ground, and that the U.S. will not. This is not burden-sharing; it’s burden-shifting.”
