Transatlantic Fracture Widens as Trump Courts Putin, Leaving Europe Torn Between Outrage and Alliance

The rupture between Europe and the United States over Russia’s war in Ukraine has reached a perilous new low as Donald Trump doubles down on his embrace of Vladimir Putin, shaking an alliance already navigating treacherous terrain.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

In the span of two extraordinary weeks, the U.S. president has struck a diesel agreement with his Russian counterpart, eased economic sanctions on Moscow, called for new elections in Ukraine, and questioned the legitimacy of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — whom Trump described as “more difficult to deal with” than Putin.

Zelenskyy, increasingly defiant, has denounced the diesel deal as a “historic mistake” and warned that further U.S.-Russian accords — covering gas flows, banking, chemicals, and frozen assets — would soon follow.

Kyiv has also reported abrupt restrictions on the use of Starlink satellite systems and deliveries of U.S.-made weaponry.

“I believe steps have been taken to convince Ukraine to capitulate,” Zelenskyy told Bloomberg, reviving long-held fears that Trump and Putin might engineer a backroom deal culminating in Kyiv’s surrender.

Moscow’s proposal for a trilateral summit involving Putin, Trump, and Chinese President Xi Jinping has only deepened those anxieties.

“I would do it. Not so much for Ukraine, because Russia, frankly, has been fine on Ukraine,” Trump remarked when asked about the proposed meeting.

The dizzying pace of events has caught European capitals off guard. After previous shocks, many believed they had learned to navigate Trump’s unilateral diplomatic style. Once again, they find themselves blindsided and undercut by a close ally willing to court Russia without extracting a single concession.

“We want to leave no doubt about our position towards Ukraine, and at the same time, we know that the Americans have other interests,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said at the close of a two-day summit in Brussels last week.

In a pointed rebuke, French President Emmanuel Macron decried the “ambiguities” of certain leaders and warned: “Capitulation is weakness. Weakness is danger.”

Italy’s Giorgia Meloni labeled the diesel deal a “very risky choice” that legitimizes Moscow and erodes sanctions. Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen lamented that “we, the Western alliance, are in a worse position now than we were a few days ago.”

On Tuesday, High Representative Kaja Kallas upped the ante, explicitly accusing the U.S. of pressuring Ukraine to “surrender on Putin’s terms.”

Conscious Coupling

Yet despite the chorus of criticism and widespread indignation, Europe remains unwilling — and perhaps unprepared — to sever ties with Trump and chart an independent course.

Brussels, Berlin, Paris, and London still prefer to maintain an active, if precarious, channel with Washington to exert whatever influence they can, as evidenced by their participation in the latest round of U.S.-led peace talks in Miami and later in Oslo.

“Europe will live with the consequences, and that’s why we need to see a more unified Europe at the table,” Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre said.

For Kyiv, Europe’s presence has become indispensable as a counterweight to the White House’s Russia-friendly tilt. Zelenskyy has repeatedly urged Europe to open a parallel channel with Moscow, but the Kremlin has shown no interest.

Though Trump’s recent moves underscore the limits of European leverage, the prevailing logic remains unchanged: the seat at the table must be preserved at all costs.

“We have to move forward, because we also know cooperation with the US is essential for Ukraine to fight its war. Everybody knows the volumes that are part of the diesel deal are low,” a senior diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“So keep calm and carry on. Deplore and continue. But no over-dramatisation either. That’s in none of our interests.”

Some officials take comfort in the assessment that Trump’s rapprochement with Putin is driven largely by a desire to deflect blame for high fuel prices ahead of next month’s midterm elections, where polls suggest his Republican Party faces losses.

Trump claims Ukraine’s successful strikes on Russian oil refineries are to blame, but energy experts agree his pressure campaign on Iran is the primary driver of oil market turmoil.

“We have dialogue, and we’ll continue to have dialogue. It has taken us to positive results in what our interests are concerned,” a senior official said. “This is the best way.”

Yet a growing recognition is taking hold that Europe and the U.S. have fundamentally diverged in their approaches to Russia — differences that may prove impossible to reconcile.

Europe, for now, bets on sanctions to cripple the Russian war machine, long-term decoupling to end vulnerable dependencies, and strict diplomatic isolation. Although some far-right and far-left parties challenge this consensus, the strategy commands broad support.

The U.S., by contrast, is dangling economic incentives to draw Russia into negotiations. These reportedly include an early partial release of sovereign assets and the resumption of gas flows to Europe — both of which Europe has already rejected. Deals involving Lukoil and nuclear technology are also said to be in the works.

European officials argue the American approach is flawed because it ignores Putin’s fixation on territorial conquest — the core motive behind the invasion. No deal, however lucrative, can substitute for Ukraine’s annihilation in Putin’s calculus, they contend.

Washington’s invitation to Putin for the G20 summit in Florida, which a dozen European leaders are slated to attend, stands as another glaring marker of this transatlantic disconnect.

As Trump moves closer to Putin, the ideological chasm across the Atlantic is unlikely to narrow anytime soon. If anything, it could deepen further, raising profound questions about what happens when the peace process reaches its endgame and allies are called to make joint decisions of historic consequence.

Maria Shagina, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, says the White House’s actions are designed to pressure Europe into abandoning its pressure campaign and acquiescing to the U.S. stance on Russia.

“The more fundamental question is whether Europe can sustain an independent sanctions strategy over the longer term. The EU and the UK retain considerable economic leverage over Russia, but can they translate that leverage into effective and sustained pressure on Moscow without U.S. participation?” Shagina told Euronews.

“The challenge is not simply whether Europe possesses sufficient economic power, but whether it has the political will, institutional capacity and strategic coherence to deploy that power independently of Washington — something that until now has been inconceivable.”

Source link