The recent verbal attack on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House by Trump and Vice President JD Vance sent shockwaves across the international community. Yet perhaps of even greater significance was the clandestine meeting between senior U.S. and Russian officials in Saudi Arabia, where discussions about the Ukraine crisis unfolded. This event reverberated deeply within Europe, America's closest ally.
While European leaders have consistently reaffirmed their unwavering support for Ukraine in its resistance to the Russian invasion — a position underscored by the presence of numerous European leaders at the third anniversary conference of the war in Kyiv — an alternative diplomatic undercurrent has also surfaced. Around the same time, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited the White House and stressed the need to guarantee Ukraine's security in any prospective cease-fire negotiation. In stark contrast, Trump simply underscored the urgency of terminating the war.
On Feb. 24, more than 50 nations — including European states, Ukraine and Japan — proposed a resolution to the United Nations General Assembly Emergency Special Session unequivocally demanding the immediate withdrawal of Russian forces and condemning Russia's aggression. They further called for investigation and prosecution of Russian violations of international law. Yet, on that very afternoon, a U.S.-drafted resolution presented at the Security Council called for a swift cessation of hostilities and the establishment of lasting peace, pointedly referring to the situation as the “Russia-Ukraine conflict” rather than a war of aggression.Although key European players such as France and the United Kingdom harbored reservations, they abstained from voting rather than opposing the resolution outright. Consequently, the measure was passed with 10 votes in favor, none against, and five abstentions, thus enshrining Security Council Resolution 2774 — the first such resolution since the onset of the conflict.The diplomatic ambivalence exhibited by European nations, particularly France and the UK, on the question is emblematic of the profound strategic unease wrought by Trump's “bypass diplomacy.”
The Biden administration had framed the G7, anchored by the United States and Europe, as a bastion of “democracy” in opposition to the “authoritarianism” of China and Russia. However, this ideological construct is unraveling. America's erratic diplomatic maneuvers have left Europe — long perceiving itself as both a Cold War victor and a custodian of the liberal international order — grappling with a deepening sense of impotence.In February 2022, following the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Biden swiftly elevated what was fundamentally a post-Cold War European security disequilibrium into a grand ideological and bloc-based confrontation. To some, the Ukraine crisis represents a pivotal moment in the structural transformation of global politics wherein the contest between the Western “democratic bloc” and the Sino-Russian “authoritarian bloc” heralds the advent of a new cold war — one that threatens to redefine the international system. Within this paradigm the liberal international order, which has ostensibly expanded since the Cold War's end, now faces formidable challenges. The prevailing logic dictates that the U.S. and Europe must stand united against Russia to safeguard this order, casting the struggle as a battle between the victors of the Cold War and the vanquished. But Trump's direct engagement with Russia has shaken the very foundations of Europe's Cold War victory narrative, leaving the continent in a state of strategic disorientation.
Certain European leaders, most notably Macron, have voiced apprehensions about America's “bypass diplomacy” and have endeavored to address its ramifications. However, they appear bereft of the leadership and coherence necessary to forge a unified strategic vision for Europe.In the early stages of the conflict, Macron championed the cause of European strategic autonomy, pursued mediation and underscored the importance of giving Russia its due recognition as a great power. His visit to Moscow to engage directly with President Vladimir Putin was emblematic of this approach. Yet, as the Biden administration adopted an increasingly hard-line posture toward Russia, Macron's efforts toward strategic autonomy seemed to morph into a more conventional emphasis on strengthening Europe's defensive capabilities.After Trump's re-election, Macron sought to carve out a role for himself at the negotiating table, casting himself as a mediator. His efforts culminated in an invitation extended to both Trump and Zelensky for a meeting in Paris in December 2024. As the longest-serving head of state among Western leaders, Macron's prior acquaintance with Trump, dating to his first term, may afford him some diplomatic leverage. But whether France and the European Union can assert meaningful influence in future negotiations remains an open question.
Europe's growing unease over America's erratic diplomacy is neither unfounded nor irrational. However, the real issue is not Washington's unpredictability but Europe's persistent failure to forge a coherent and independent strategic vision.For more than three decades since the Cold War's end, Europe has viewed itself as a geopolitical victor. Yet today its greatest challenge does not come from external rivals like Russia or China but from internal stagnation. Once-dominant industries, such as auto manufacturing, now struggle to compete. Meanwhile, aging infrastructure, persistent inflation, declining quality of life and a shrinking middle class exacerbate the continent's vulnerabilities.Europe's resurgence requires a renewed pragmatic focus. Its future hinges on maintaining competitiveness and economic growth while safeguarding quality of life, employment and social security for its citizens. If Trump's “bypass diplomacy” acts as a significant external shock, it could hasten Europe's long-overdue strategic awakening.
