Three Years of War: Is the Trump Administration reshaping the Ukraine Conflict and Europe’s Security?

24 February 2025 marks the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. According to the United Nations, since the conflict began in 2022 more than 42,000 civilians have been wounded or killed – including 2,500 children, 6.9 million Ukrainians have registered as refugees and a further 3.7 million are internally displaced within Ukraine. While the human tally of the conflict has been considerable, the war itself has turned into a war of attrition. The last year and a half have seen various waves of intense fighting on the eastern front, and even an incursion into Russia, but significant territorial gains on either the Russian or the Ukrainian side have not been made. 

With the relative stalemate on the battlefield, in February 2025 US President Donald Trump announced that he had begun talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war. Days later a meeting between the US Secretary of State and the Russian Foreign Minister was held in Saudi Arabia to work out the conditions to end the conflict. The news of the talks surprised both the political leaders in Kiev as well as in most capitals in Europe, as they had not been made privy to the talks taking place nor invited to participate. Adding insult to injury to Ukraine and its European backers, Donald Trump and his team appear to precondition the settlement of the conflict in various ways which seems to side with Moscow’s preferences. US officials have held that it is unrealistic for Ukraine to aspire to return to its 2014 borders as well as to one day join NATO. Furthermore, concerns rose further as the US President also repeated some of Russia’s classic disinformation talking points and called the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a “dictator”, who was to blame for the war starting in the first place. The overtly pro-Russian stance of Trump has shocked most observers. Many were also quick to note that the Trump administration’s decision to take the Russian side came days after a failed US-Ukrainian multi-billion deal for US companies to develop critical material in Ukraine. Zelensky had initially entertained the agreement as a means to safeguard a steady stream of US weapons and security guarantees for the country beyond 2025, but backtracked once the US stated that the revenue stream generated from the agreement would be used to compensate the US for its assistance to Ukraine since 2022. 

While some attribute the US President’s bluster simply to theatrics, meant to ensure that both Russians and Ukrainians show up at an eventual peace negotiating table, others fear that it is the prelude to a historic shift in global politics and, above all, in the post-Cold War European security order. 

The Trump White House’s proposals for the settlement of the Ukrainian war clearly ignore longstanding calls for “a just peace, based on the United Nations Charter, international law and General Assembly resolutions”. Too strongly favoring Russia, as the aggressor, would entail the undermining, even potentially unravelling, of some of the core principles of international law as inherent to the UN Charter as well as the Helsinki Act. This could weaken the international community’s ability to intervene and mitigate future conflicts or other acts of aggression, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It would also substantially erode the role and legitimacy of the international organizations that sustain the global order.

The knock-on effects for any future European security order are also palpable. While the prospect of peace appeals to all parties, the US President’s pro-Russian overtures on Ukraine prompt concerns whether a just end to the war and a sustainable peace in Eastern Europe will be possible. The worry is that if Russia succeeds in obtaining most of its aims for Ukraine with the US’ help, it will not only leave Ukraine vulnerable to future Russian interference and/or aggressions, but also increasingly expose other countries in the Russian self-proclaimed ‘sphere of influence’ in Eastern Europe, such as Armenia, Georgia, or Moldova, to greater Russian pressure. There is also apprehension about potential Russian coercion among European EU-NATO countries with a large contingent on Russian speakers within their borders, given Vladimir Putin’s long-held ambitions to unite all Russophones and orthodox believers under Moscow’s influence (Russkiy mir or ‘Russian world’). Finally, while the endgame for peace in Ukraine and its implication for the European security order are still much up in the air as the war enters its 4^th year, European EU-NATO members cannot help but wonder whether Trump’s pro-Russian proposals are a pretext for the US to withdraw from NATO and as a security guarantor in Europe. The US withdrawal from European security would mark an end to the security order that was put in place after World War II. Trump is not the first US President to express a will for lessened involvement in Europe. All previous presidential attempts to pivot away from Europe have, however, stranded once the US administration in question has tallied up the enormous benefit of staying involved in Europe, both for the US military industry and weapons exports as well as for Washington’s ability to have some sway over the Europeans on global issues by ways of NATO. Trump might, however, not perceive the need for European support for the US’ global ambitions. He might also assume that trade with the Europeans, whether in terms of weapons or across the board, can be better boosted by intimidation and threats of tariffs, rather than through organizational ties. The proposed settlement of the Ukraine war and the combative stance of the US president towards European EU-NATO countries during Trump’s first month in office thus appear to indicate a new radical departure in transatlantic relations. The Europeans hence have to think fast and hard about what a future European security order will look like and how they might be able to organize themselves to face Russia, as well as an increasingly unpredictable and hostile US, whether or not peace in Ukraine takes hold.

For factchecking on some of Donald Trump’s claims on Ukraine, see here.

Picture. Source: Flickr

The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the blog posts belong solely to the authors, and are not necessarily representative of the Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals (IBEI) nor the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation. The content provided through our blogs is for informational purposes only. Readers are encouraged to consider the context and research behind the viewpoints shared within each blog post.