EU Opposes Trump’s “Big Beautiful” Deal with Russia, Demands Full‑Europe Participation

European leaders have firmly rejected any effort by the United States and Russia to reshape the continent’s security architecture without their involvement, responding to President Donald Trump’s claim that Washington may be moving toward a sweeping agreement with Moscow that would extend beyond Ukraine to encompass all of Europe.

The remarks, made by Trump on Thursday, have raised fresh concerns among Washington’s European allies that the U.S. administration could be steering a security arrangement that satisfies President Vladimir Putin’s longstanding demands at the expense of European interests.

Trump described the projected agreement as a “very big” deal that would extend beyond Ukraine to cover all of Europe: “It’s going to be very big. It will involve more than Ukraine, and I could even say it might include all of Europe. It will be a major, beautiful agreement, and everyone will be thrilled,” Trump declared, sparing detailed specifics.

His comments came as his special envoy and son‑in‑law, Jared Kushner, announced that Washington is working on a broader European security architecture intended to create conditions for lasting peace.

The initiative has immediately drawn objections from European officials, who insist that the continent’s security arrangements are already established and cannot be renegotiated over their heads.

European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas emphasized that the continent already possesses a security architecture, but warned that Russia repeatedly violates the treaties that underpin it; NATO presented no threat to Russia in 2021, nor does one today, and President Putin lacks a veto over European security.

Kallas also stressed that the European Union would have to be involved in any agreement if it were to be implemented.

Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski echoed the position, stating: “An arrangement about the future of Ukraine and Europe above our heads would not just be unwise. It is actually impossible.”

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha added that Moscow could not be considered a guarantor of European security, arguing that the priority must be protecting Europe against Russian aggression rather than negotiating spheres of influence with the Kremlin.

“We have to talk about protecting ourselves against Russia, not about talking with Russians about spheres of influence in Europe,” Sybiha said, reinforcing Kyiv’s stance following his meetings with Kaja Kallas in Warsaw and stressing that neither Ukraine’s future nor Europe’s security can be decided without the direct involvement of both.

Washington pushes for a broader security framework

The diplomatic rift occurs as the Trump administration intensifies efforts to end the war in Ukraine, with U.S. representatives preparing for renewed negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow in Abu Dhabi next week.

After months of largely stalled diplomatic talks, Washington has stepped up its engagement with both sides, seeking a framework that could deliver a durable settlement.

Earlier this week, American representatives held two days of discussions in Brussels with NATO, the European Union and major European powers, focusing on security guarantees for Ukraine and the future of Europe’s wider security arrangements.

Kushner, who participated via video link, outlined Washington’s ambition to develop a broader framework.

In a statement on social media, he said the United States was working toward practical arrangements to address the security concerns of all parties and lay the foundations for lasting peace.

The American proposal links the post‑war security question for Ukraine with the broader relationship between Russia and the West.

However, the language has revived longstanding European worries about Moscow’s ambition to reshape the security order established after the Cold War.

Before launching its full‑scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia demanded fundamental changes to Europe’s security arrangements, including NATO’s withdrawal from post‑1997 member countries. The alliance rejected those demands, insisting that sovereign states retain control over their own security arrangements.

Europe demands a seat at the negotiating table

For European capitals, the central issue is not merely whether Washington can negotiate an end to the war, but whether decisions affecting the security of the entire continent can be made without the direct participation of those countries most directly affected.

Europe has repeatedly called for a greater role in the U.S.–led diplomatic initiative, especially as discussions expand beyond the immediate battlefront in Ukraine.

European Commission Chief Spokesperson Paula Pinho said on Friday that considerable work remains before a peace agreement can be reached, reinforcing that the European Union will determine its own security matters.

NATO, meanwhile, reiterated that Ukraine’s allies are working toward a “just and sustainable” end to the conflict.

Kushner sought to reassure European partners that they would not be excluded from the broader process. He said Washington intended to consult closely with them on the sidelines of the Abu Dhabi talks and, if progress is made, move toward a multilateral format that includes their direct participation.

Abu Dhabi talks could prove a crucial test

The planned discussions in Abu Dhabi will serve as a vital test of Washington’s ability to reconcile the competing interests of Ukraine, Russia and its European allies.

The United States is seeking proposals that could bring the fighting to an end while establishing security arrangements capable of preventing another war.

However, the fundamental positions remain sharp: Ukraine demands credible guarantees against future Russian aggression, whereas Moscow has long sought constraints on NATO’s presence and influence in Eastern Europe.

European governments are determined to prevent any settlement that would reward Russian military aggression or undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and its right to determine its own political and security future.

Washington’s effort to negotiate a broader European security framework with Moscow will have to contend with Europe’s firm opposition to any arrangement that could undermine NATO, compromise existing security agreements, or limit the sovereignty of European states.

Reactions from Warsaw, Brussels and Kyiv underscore that any deal negotiated primarily between Washington and Moscow would face considerable resistance.

Source link