OPINION: “My Friends’ Enemy is Now My Friend” – Part 2

This is the second part of a two-part op-ed. For the first part, go here.

In less than a month President Donald Trump has withdrawn the US from several international organizations and a legally binding treaty on climate change; temporarily stopped USAID at the peril of millions and ending a strategic soft power tool ensuring US global influence; launched sanctions against the ICC, eroding the international rule of law; started a trade war against the most important US trading partners; bullied allies; threatened land grab in three different regions and suggested ethnic cleansing.

Recent statements by the US President, the speech by the US Vice President and the US Defense Secretary marks an end to the era of shared US-European values, signaling a deepening mismatch in the perceived threat from Russia and a threat to the understanding of the meaning of democracy.

Unfortunately, this only marks the start of a fundamental geopolitical tectonic shift.

We are also witnessing the emergence of an unthinkable alliance between Putin and Trump at the peril of Europe.

President Trump’s “plan” to end the war in Ukraine, will most likely, further deepen transatlantic differences as his strategic messaging is frighteningly similar to President Putin’s own brand of disinformation and ultimatums.

The Trump administration signals measures in line with Putin’s demands.

Other Topics of Interest

Zelensky, Merz Discuss Stronger German Support for Ukraine After Debacle in DC

Their conversation came amid reports that the US has frozen military aid to Ukraine following the clash between Zelensky and Trump on Friday.

Trump has decided it was time to restore the relationship between the “US president and Putin, a leader subject to US and EU sanctions and an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for crimes against humanity and genocide.” Since his inauguration, Trump’s statements and actions have aligned with Putin 29 times, focusing on closer ties with the Kremlin, Politico reported on Feb. 21.

Responsibility for the war

The Kremlin has persistently placed the blame for Russia’s full-scale war on Ukraine. It claims that Russia was compelled to use military force to stop the so-called eastward expansion of NATO and protect ethnic Russian Ukrainians from alleged discrimination towards their Russian language, media, and culture.

Trump agrees. Days ago, he told President Zelensky, “You should have never started [the war]. You could have made a deal.” The US is allegedly also reluctant to label Russia as the aggressor.

According to The Washington Post, the Trump administration asked Ukraine to withdraw a draft UN General Assembly resolution condemning the Russian full-scale invasion and demanding that Moscow withdraw its troops from Ukrainian territory. The US drafted an alternative resolution that made no mention of the invasion, Ukraine’s occupied territories, Moscow’s violations of international law or Russia’s status as an aggressor state.

On Feb 24 – the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine – the US voted against a resolution, proposed by the European Union and Ukraine. According to the media, the US had allegedly been pressuring other nations not to support Ukraine’s resolution and instead vote for the American proposal.

Washington strongly objected to language on Russian aggression as Canada tried to negotiate a joint G7 statement on the war.

The refusal to call Russia an aggressor is feared to signal the US’s withdrawal from the group of countries intent on preparing a special tribunal for the crime of Russian aggression against Ukraine.

Concessions

Putin demands that Ukraine must cede the regions of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson as well as Crimea to Russia. This includes a demand that Kyiv cedes those parts of the four regions that Ukraine currently controls. The Kremlin is adamant, however, that Russia will make no similar territorial concessions.  

Trump agrees in principle. In contradiction to international law, he argues that Ukraine must cede territory to Russia to achieve peace. The US Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, said on 12 February that a return to Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders is not a realistic goal.

NATO membership

Putin demands that Ukraine must abandon its goal to join NATO. The Kremlin stresses that blocking Ukraine’s membership is not enough. The Alliance must formally renounce its 2008 Bucharest commitment to seeing future membership for Kyiv.

Trump agrees. Days ago, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, underlined that the US does not consider NATO membership for Ukraine a realistic outcome during a negotiated settlement of the war.

The US also refuses to provide Ukraine with the security guarantees it needs to accept a peace deal demanding it is provided by Europe. The US even highlights that if Europe decides to deploy “peacekeepers in Ukraine at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non-NATO mission, and they should not be covered under Article 5.” No US support will be forthcoming.

“Denazification”

Putin demands that Ukraine must agree to “denazification.” Most experts see this as a demand for a change of Government in favor of pro-Russian proxies. The Kremlin has persistently promoted false narratives that the Ukrainian President is “illegitimate” and claims that Zelensky does not have the authority to negotiate with Russia or that Russia does not need to honor in the future any agreements that he may sign.

Trump agrees. The Trump administration has recently stressed that the US wants Ukraine “to hold elections” and stated this as US policy, fully ignoring the Ukrainian constitution. President Trump deceitfully calls President Zelensky a dictator while refusing to call Putin the same. He wrongly claims that Zelensky allegedly has a 4% approval rating despite a survey from December showing 52% of Ukrainians trust the head of state.

Vice President Vance considers the idea that elections cannot be held during the war “preposterous”, misleadingly citing WW2 and the UK as an example.

After the first US and Russia meeting, they proposed a three-stage peace plan consisting of a ceasefire, elections in Ukraine, and lastly, the signing of a final agreement by a new president.

Sanctions

Putin demands the removal of all Western sanctions against Russia.

Trump agrees. Following talks between the US and Russia on Feb. 18, Rubio suggested that lifting sanctions against Russia would be part of any peace process, saying that “concessions” would have to be made by parties to bring an end to the war. The “parties” are explicitly defined to include Ukraine, Russia, and US partners in Europe. He hinted at the potential involvement of the EU in future negotiations, as it also has imposed sanctions on Russia, hinting that a peace deal could serve as grounds for Brussels to lift it sanctions.

The lifting of sanctions is not being linked to the return of Russian occupied territories – or for Moscow to stop the ongoing war against the West – but simply for the Kremlin to sign a peace deal that many expect to be short-lived. More than 200 separate negotiations have demonstrated the futility of engaging Russia in peace talks - it sees negotiations as a means to defeat its opponents.

Trump does not regard support for Ukraine to be in the US national interest. According to him, one of the great sins of the past policy on Russia, is that it has pushed Russia toward China. He sees China as the greatest threat to US interests and wants to turn Russia away from China.

European security and stability

Putin has categorically said that Europe should be excluded from any peace negotiations, claiming that European countries are aggressive toward Russia. It claims that the EU and the UK are “blinded” by Russophobia and adhering to the principles of the Ukrainian Peace Plan, have unrealistic demands for the negotiations.

Russia has strenuously argued that it is at war with the West. Mirroring its actions against the West, it accuses the US, NATO and the EU of waging an information war, economic war, war of proxy and total war against Russia. Sanctions against Moscow are portrayed as an act of aggression.  All the while Russia is de facto waging a hybrid war against the EU and its member states.

On Dec. 17, 2021, Russia published a draft treaty between the US and the Russian Federation “on security guarantees”, as well as a draft agreement on measures to ensure the security of Russia and NATO member states. In essence, Putin demanded a sphere of influence over parts of EU and NATO territory.

Trump agrees in principle. Since Ukrainian and, therefore, European security is at stake, one could have expected that the US had first discussed the plan and strategy with the victims of Russia’s war of aggression before sitting down with the delegation from the invader. Trump has shocked Europe by calling Putin and started negotiations without consulting Allies and Ukraine.

Donald Trump’s Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg, has stated that Europe won’t have a seat at the table for the peace talks. Washington has, however, sent a questionnaire to European capitals to ask what they could contribute to security guarantees for Ukraine.

The EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission Kaja Kallas has stated that “any peace agreement concluded without the participation of Ukraine and Europe will have no chance of success.

She warns that potential backdoor deals will threaten to repeat historical mistakes of appeasement. By drawing direct parallels to the 1938 Munich and the failed Minsk agreements, Kallas highlights how excluding Ukraine and Europe from peace talks could lead to a superficial settlement that not only fails to secure lasting peace but potentially emboldens further Russian aggression.

Most European leaders agree with the notion that “the future of European and global security depends on the outcome of the war in Ukraine.” The security of the Alliance has long been linked to Ukraine’s ability to withstand the Russian onslaught.

Walking away from the US commitment to guarantee the security of Ukraine, therefore, equals stepping away from the 1949 Washington Treaty that led to the formation of NATO.

Peace, capitulation or something else entirely?

The absence of good faith negotiations has been repeatedly proven during 11 years of the war and was reaffirmed on June 14, when Putin reiterated his terms for “negotiation.” His demands were tantamount to a call for a Ukrainian capitulation as a crucial step to achieving strategic parity for Russia with the US and China.

Trump’s peace plan – or the part we understand from various [often contradictory] statements – is not in any way linked to either Ukraine’s Peace Plan or the subsequent Victory Plan. The former is based on international law, including the UN Charter and the joint communiqué is supported by 94 countries and organizations, including – until now - the US.

Trump’s plan is based on none of the above – it is a blueprint for Russian victory over Ukraine and the West. Recent statements by the Trump administration indicating that Russia and the US policy are getting increasingly aligned, justify that assessment. According to Politico Trump has supported Putin 29 times since his inauguration, signaling a new US policy focusing on closer ties with the Kremlin.

The US made several concessions to Putineven before starting the negotiations.  We must, therefore, consider the very real possibility that the concessions serve the US national interest and that an improved relationship with Russia is more important than its present relationship with US traditional allies. If that is indeed the case, the potential ramifications are truly profound. There is no such thing as the collective West anymore.

“Europe Should Be Afraid if Putin Accepts US-Proposed Peace Plan”

Trump accepting Putin’s demands will undermine European security and increase the likelihood of future war.

US statements are constantly shifting, indicating that it is improvising and adapting. While claiming commitment to a just and lasting peace, the Trump administration has become increasingly anti-Ukrainian and anti-European. President Trump has made a series of false and inflammatory statements about President Zelensky and Ukraine. He has:

• Suggested that Ukraine “may be Russian someday,” openly questioning the future independence of a sovereign country that has bravely defended itself and protected Europe against Russian aggressions for more than 11 years.
• Rejected Kyiv’s outrage over being excluded from the initial talks, despite the internationally recognized policy of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”.
• Falsely blamed Ukraine for sparking the full-scale war with Russia, despite the latter being universally recognized as the aggressor and Ukraine as the victim of an unprovoked and unjustified full-scale war.
• Claimed Ukraine “had three years to negotiate” an end to the war, accusing Zelensky of not holding “any negotiations or meetings,” despite more than 200 talks and 20 ceasefire agreements before the full-scale war, the Istanbul negotiations in 2022 and Ukraine’s Peace Summit in Switzerland in 2024.
• Called Zelensky a “dictator without elections,” making elections in Ukraine a matter of US policy, despite the country’s martial law, which according to the constitution makes elections impossible during wartime.
• Claimed Zelensky’s approval rating was 4%, despite recent polls showing that 57% of the population trust him.
• Alleged that Zelenskyy talked the US into spending $350 Billion - three times the actual aid donated - “to go into a War that couldn’t be won, that never had to start”, falsely claiming that Ukraine has lost half of the donated funds despite multiple US public reports to the contrary.
• Stated that Zelenskyy has done a terrible job and that millions have unnecessarily died, “I’ve been watching this man for years now, as his cities get demolished, as his people get killed, as the soldiers get decimated.” Trump said: “I’ve been watching him negotiate with no cards. He has no cards, and you get sick of it.” This is despite Ukraine’s courageous defense, inflicting tremendous Russian losses.
• Stated that Russia “wants to stop the savage barbarism,” despite Russia’s unjustified and unprovoked invasion and ability to end the war by simply withdrawing its occupation forces. Instead, the Kremlin continues to uphold its brutal war of aggression.

According to The Telegraph, “Trump’s administration has presented Ukraine with the terms of an agreement on mineral resources in exchange for military assistance – terms that are usually imposed on aggressor states defeated in war.”

To ramp up the pressure on Ukraine, US House Speaker Mike Johnson has stated that there is “no appetite” for passing a new bill in support of Ukraine, indirectly telling Ukraine to fall in line and make the concessions the US demands.

To further pressure Ukraine, the US has indicated that it might disconnect Ukraine from Starlink. The system is crucial for Ukraine’s ability to exercise command and control over its armed forces, enabling “David to effectively fight Goliath”.

Ukraine was being told to either give the US control over the country’s critical minerals, oil and gas, ports and infrastructure or face defeat, even though the latest reports suggest Trump may be rowing back on some of his demands.

Recent actions mark a sharp departure from past US policy towards both Ukraine and its European allies.

Ukraine is exposed to both Russian and US disinformation, and a smear campaign and is being openly threatened and blackmailed by the Trump administration. Canada and European allies are being mocked and threatened with land grabs and trade wars as the Trump administration turns its back on the Washington Treaty.

In contrast, talking to President Putin Trump signaled respect, agreeing “to work together, very closely, including visiting each other’s Nations.”

“Nearly three years after Russia’s unprovoked, full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Trump decided it was time to restore direct contact between the U.S. president and Putin, a leader subject to U.S. and EU sanctions and an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for crimes against humanity and genocide,” Politico commented.

“I’ve had very good talks with Putin, and I’ve had not such good talks with Ukraine, Trump has said.”

The bottom line

Putin has been trying to weaken the transatlantic link and divide the allies since the actual start of his war on Ukraine – Feb. 20, 2014. Trump has achieved all of this within a month in office. More crucially, an unlikely alliance between Russia and the US seems to be in the making.

Western gut instinct is to try to protect the unity and not allow Putin to succeed in splitting the most successful military alliance in history.

It is, however, impossible to stop something that has already happened.

In September 2023, I asked, “Will NATO survive the war?” I argued that it was already divided over member states’ lack of political will and military capabilities; discord over NATO’s level of ambitions and strategy; and Europe’s and the US’s failure to meet their commitments to NATO.  The US was again questioning its role in European security, despite Europe’s commitment to US security. Under US leadership – and to the despair of Eastern Europe – NATO has walked away from its commitment to defend itself in Ukraine.

One month after the inauguration of Trump, the question has become even more acute.

In the article “Urgent: Strengthen European Defense Capabilities Now!” I stressed the need to restore European strategic autonomy because of Trump’s aggressive policy towards his allies. The article also highlighted NATO’s decision-making process made impotent by “enemies within”. 

The Trump administration claims to be working for a just and lasting peace. The goal is allegedly “to end this conflict in a fair, lasting, sustainable, and acceptable manner,” expecting Russia to make territorial concessions. These are at best white noise as the realities are defined by US actions.

The Trump administration pressures the victim while rewarding the aggressor.

For years the West evaluated Russia based on how it wanted it to develop and not what it became. We closed our eyes to the realities for far too long. We must not make the same mistake with NATO and the US. European foreign and defense policy must be based on an honest assessment of the realities. When a country disregards international law, starts a global trade war, or threatens its allies and courts autocracies, we must put “hope” aside and act according to the threat implied.

To deter and build partnership, Europe must speak a language Russia, and the US understand: resolve and strength.

Now, more than ever, it is crucially important for a European coalition of the like-minded (CALM) to be formed to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Ukraine. Ukraine must know that we have their back. It is time to mobilize.

European leaders must speak up against Trump’s disinformation, lies and threats. Europe needs to signal its intention to stand by its commitment to support Ukraine and defend Europe against all threats, from all directions.

Not least, it must most urgently signal the need to seek a new alliance given the Trump-induced rupture of the transatlantic link. We cannot abandon democratic values and core principles in the face of an oligarchy. Equally importantly, we must not allow ourselves to be bullied by former friends.

It is high time to establish who our true friends are. For liberal, democratic European countries, Ukraine should be on top of the list. It is after all protecting our core values and principles.

The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.