Trump Zelenskyy meeting: Why Europe is alarmed

Europe felt sidelined and marginalised because Trump initiated direct engagement with Putin. He invited the Russian President to Alaska, ignoring European concerns. But Europe does not know how to deal with such a leader. Pushing back hard may alienate Trump further, while remaining silent amounts to giving a free hand to the White House and the Kremlin to divide Ukraine’s territories. Therefore, the European leaders adopted a time-tested strategy of the weak — assuage the leader, praise his deal-making capabilities and wait for better times. It is unfortunate that a bloc as large as the European Union, of 27 members, 450 million people and a $20 trillion economy, is unable to take an independent stand and resort to appeasing a mercurial leader.

Ursula von der Leyen, Keir Starmer, Alexander Stubb, Emmanuel Macron, Giorgia Meloni, Friedrich Merz and Mark Rutte came to Washington with the following objectives: To avoid the recurrence of a diplomatic disaster which occurred during Zelensky’s previous meeting with Trump at the White House in February this year; to dissuade Trump from putting pressure on Zelenskyy to concede territory to Russia; to ensure continued US support for the proposed security guarantees to Ukraine, and finally, to push for a ceasefire between the belligerents.

Based on the above parameters, Europe did not achieve much from their meeting with Trump. It was cordial, but the outcomes were insignificant. There was no consensus with respect to a ceasefire. European leaders were unable to persuade Trump to first push for a ceasefire before any hasty peace deal. Ukraine wants an immediate ceasefire because the Russian army has an upper hand and may capture more territory in the coming weeks. Russia, on the other hand, wants a broader “peace deal” because it fears that Ukraine may use a temporary ceasefire to bolster its defences. Trump’s talk of a peace deal endorses the Russian stance, ignoring Ukrainian concerns.

European leaders have framed the meeting as a diplomatic success, advancing the narrative of a unified West and not succumbing to Russian manipulation. From their perspective, the US committed to some form of security guarantee for Ukraine, and the sovereignty of the latter remains intact, for now.

Within the larger picture, however, Ukraine does emerge as a loser. Ukraine’s desire for NATO membership was one of the main causes of the conflict, but Trump has made it clear that Kyiv must abandon its hope of joining the military alliance. The only assurance that Trump has provided is that the US will continue selling weapons to Europe, which it can send to Ukraine. How is that a security guarantee is beyond anyone’s comprehension.

The issue of territorial divisions did not figure in Trump’s meeting with European leaders. This might have been a deliberate strategy to avoid contentious issues blowing up a short meeting. But Trump has made it abundantly clear through his previous statements that a peace deal is unlikely without Ukraine conceding some territory to Russia. Just before this meeting, Trump tweeted that Ukraine must forget Crimea. Further, his insistence on a peace deal implies that Ukraine will have to negotiate Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk and Luhansk, which are largely under de facto Russian control. Putin demands the whole of the Donbas region, consisting of Donetsk and Luhansk, known for their industrial bases. In all likelihood, therefore, for any quick deal to happen, Ukraine will, unfortunately, have to concede some territory to Russia.

The writer teaches at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. Views are personal