By Stefan Wolff
European leaders are scrambling to respond to what looks like the end of reliable US protection of the continent. It is unclear what the “main European countries” (which includes the UK) might be able to agree at a hastily convened meeting in Paris on Monday February 17. But individual countries, including the UK and Germany, have come forward to put concrete offers on the table for Ukraine’s security, which could include putting their troops on the ground.
This unusual circling of the wagons was triggered by the 2025 Munich Security Conference, which ended the previous day. It brought to a close a week of remarkable upheaval for Europe, leaving no doubt that two already obvious trends in the deteriorating transatlantic relationship accelerated further.
What the world saw was unabashed US unilateralism when it comes to the war in Ukraine. Ominously, there was also a clear indication of the extent of American intentions to interfere in the domestic political processes of European countries – most notably the upcoming German parliamentary elections on February 23.
None of this should have come as a surprise. But the full-force assault by Donald Trump’s envoys to Europe was still sobering – especially once all its implications are considered. What was, perhaps, more surprising was that European leaders pushed back and did so in an unusually public and unequivocal way.
Over the course of just a few days, two of the worst European fears were confirmed. First, the Trump administration is pushing ahead with its idea of a US-Russia deal to end the war in Ukraine. And all the signs are that Washington plans to leave Ukraine and the EU out of any negotiations and to their own devices when it comes to post-ceasefire security arrangements.
On February 12, the US president announced he had spoken at length with Russian president Vladimir Putin, and subsequently informed Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky of the conversation. The same day, US defence secretary Pete Hegseth, confirmed at a press conference after a meeting of Nato defence ministers in Brussels that direct negotiations between Russia and the US would begin immediately. They will not include any European or Ukrainian officials, he said.
Hegseth also poured cold water on any hopes that there would be robust US security guarantees for Ukraine. He explicitly ruled out US troops for any peacekeeping forces deployed by other Nato members, or that any attack on those forces would be considered an attack on the whole alliance under article 5 of the Nato treaty.
The European response was swift and, at least on paper, decisive. Right after Hegseth’s comments in Brussels, the Weimar+ group (Germany, France, Poland + Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, the EU’s diplomatic service and the European Commission) issued a joint statement reiterating their commitment to enhanced support in defence of Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.
On February 14, the EU’s top officials – European council president António Costa and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen – met with Zelensky on the margins of the conference. They assured him of the EU’s “continued and stable support to Ukraine until a just, comprehensive and lasting peace is reached”.
The following day, Costa’s speech in Munich reiterated this commitment. Similar to earlier comments by Nato’s secretary general, Mark Rutte, Costa underlined Europe’s determination to “to act better, stronger and faster in building the Europe of defence”.
But these declarations of the EU’s determination to continue supporting Ukraine do not reflect consensus inside the Union on such a position. Weimar+ only includes a select number of EU member states, institutions and the UK, underlining the continuing difficulties in achieving unanimity on critical security and defence issues. Unsurprisingly, Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, issued a scathing condemnation of the Weimar+ statement as a “sad testament of bad Brusselian leadership”.
Orbán’s comments play right into many Europeans’ fears about another dark side of Trump’s agenda when it comes to transatlantic relations. As foreshadowed in the influential Project 2025 report by a coalition of conservative US thinktanks, the Trump administration is intent on weakening European unity. This will include preventing the UK from slipping “back into the orbit of the EU” and “developing new allies inside the EU – especially the Central European countries”.
Opening up divides
The US vice-president, J.D. Vance, used his speech in Munich to claim that the real threat to European security was not coming from Russia or China, but rather “from within”. He went on to chide “EU commissars” and insinuated that Europe’s current leaders had more in common with the “tyrannical forces on this continent” who lost the cold war.
In Romania, where presidential elections were cancelled after evidence of massive Russian election interference emerged, opposition parties revelled in Vance’s comments that the move had been based on the “flimsy suspicions of an intelligence agency and enormous pressure from its continental neighbours”. The vice-president has further exacerbated political divisions in a key European and Nato ally right on the border with Ukraine.
Vance subsequently sought out Alice Weidel, the co-leader of the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD). The pair reportedly discussed the war in Ukraine, German domestic politics and the so-called brandmauer. This is the agreement between centre-right and left-wing parties in Germany to form a “firewall” to prevent extreme right-wing parties from joining coalitions, which has recently been weakened.
Their meeting was widely criticised as yet another American attempt for the party to boost its chances at Germany’s upcoming parliamentary elections on February 23. Referring to Germany’s historical experience with Nazism, the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz defended the need to hold the line against far-right political parties like the AfD.
Polar shift
There have been many watershed moments and wake-up calls for Europe in the past. What is different now is that a new multipolar order is emerging – and Europe is not one of its poles. Equally importantly, given the determination of this US administration to upend the existing international order, Europe is not a part of any pole anymore either.
Simultaneously at stake are European unity and the transatlantic relationship. These are the two key pillars that have ensured European security, democracy and prosperity since the end of the second world war. Out of necessity, Europe will most likely have to adjust to a much-weakened transatlantic relationship. But the European project will not survive without unity.
This is a critical juncture for Europe. The continent needs to define its future place and role in the dysfunctional love triangle of Trump, Putin and Xi, a triumvirate that will shape and dominate the new global order.
Stefan Wolff is Professor of International Security at the University of Birmingham.
Jackson says
A sovereign nation gets invaded by a brutal dictator, and instead of supporting the people fighting for their survival, the MAGAs side with the aggressor. It’s not about logic or principle for them; it’s just cruelty, authoritarian worship, and whatever twisted grievance politics they’re clinging to. The moral rot runs deep within these people.
Ed P says
The new world order “conspiracy” is actually possible. Unless the entire rest of the world steps up, commits to and follows through with funding , threat of troops, along with strong economic ties and sanctions – China and Russia dominate. The UK-EU, (NATO) Middle East, Ind-Pacific (United States is part of) each need to finally pay their fair share. Trump advisors understand the lopsided deal that has existed needs to change.
The tariff talks, Ukrainian peace talks, Gaza cease fire, amplify and force the weak kneed alliance partners to finally commit. It’s not just militarily but more importantly economically to keep Russia and China from world domination. Their tentacles continue to grow and reach into regions far beyond their borders.
Without big risk, big rewards are never possible. This is risky. Hopefully, not too late.
DaleL says
Ed, your comment contains some historical truth.
In 1994, Russia, USA, and United Kingdom signed the Budapest Memorandum in which each country promised to respect the borders of Ukraine. In return, Ukraine gave up its Soviet era nuclear weapons. It was the best deal that Ukraine could get at the time. The EU nations were not willing to step up and provide a better security deal for Ukraine.
In 2014, Ukrainians through out their corrupt Russian aligned president, Viktor Yanukovych. In response, Russia (Putin) occupied Crimea and created a phony insurrection in the Donbas. The EU nations fussed, but would not join the USA in a more forceful response.
From 2014 to 2022, the EU nations and NATO nations have underfunded their military forces. This in the face of the obvious and growing threat from Putin’s Russia.
Russia is the clear aggressor nation. Russian forces commit war crimes on a regular basis. Putin is an actual dictator.
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) reported on 2/17/2025:
“Russian commanders continue to give orders for Russian forces to execute Ukrainian prisoners of war (POWs) on the frontline. Ukrainian Ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets reported on February 17 that footage shows Russian forces executing three surrendering Ukrainian POWs in an unspecified location after a Russian commander orders the soldiers to kill two of the POWs.[35] ISW has long assessed that Russian battlefield commanders are either complicit in or enabling their subordinates to execute Ukrainian POWs.”
joe says
And here at home:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/2/19/2304938/-The-Crash-is-coming-how-big-is-not-clear-but-big-Soon-Keep-your-calendar-clear-for-early-summer?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web
Read through this and see the real-world results of Trump/Musk’s claim that a new “Golden Age” is starting.
Samuel L. Bronkowitz says
Honestly this is probably a good thing. America is an imperialist nation and the only real interaction we have with other countries is to further that. When your “liberal” party is all about war, then maybe it’s time to reconsider things.
Laurel says
Trump, Hegseth and Vance are puppets of the Heritage Foundation. We are all being funneled into a new, world order, while being kept occupied with what bathrooms to use, what pets are being eaten, or where to move a Circus museum.
China and Russia uniting, and fighting Iran, is not a good thing for democracy. Isn’t there some sort of forecast of this? This is where Trump stands.
When will you see?
Jim says
I sincerely hope that the EU (san Orban/Hungary) will unite completely and form a military force of combined armies to support Ukraine. They should accept that the US is not going to support them and likely will not respond to any Article 5 proclamation by NATO. I believe that they can defeat Russia if they combine and support each other. We’ll see what they do over the next few days, weeks and months.
As far as Trump and Putin dictating the fate of Ukraine, again, we’ll see. They can meet, demand Ukraine hold elections, the US can cut off all aide and clearly the Ukrainians will suffer terribly. However, if the EU rises to the occasion, I do believe they can defeat Russia. Perhaps they can not return to the 2014 borders but I think they can stalemate Putin and even push his forces back.
But for all of us in the USA, anyone who is watching what the US government is currently doing should raise great alarm for our future. Trump has eroded all trust our traditional allies had in our reliability in a crisis. If the Europeans have an ounce of sense (and I think they do), they will recognize this for the betrayal it is and react accordingly. I expect we’ll see a massive reduction in cooperation between the EU nations and the US. Canada is pulling back from us as well. And, frankly, if I was Japan, South Korea and the other Asian nations, I would see what is going on between the USA and Europe and brace for the same behavior against them. Right now, the US is bracing for war with China and they will play nice with those countries because they’ll need them if it does come to war. But any government of any country doing business with the US will always for the immediate payback and not agree to any “agreements” over an extended time (like, over a year) because we have shown we will turn away from you in a crisis in a New York minute.
The long term price we will pay will be high. Wait until we need allies to go do something we want done. If they agree at all, it’s going to be “pay up front” or no deal. I fear we will see another 9-11 event (maybe worse) due to the damage Trump has done and the incompetent team he has assembled for our intelligence and defense agencies. I thought our old allies would be reticent to share intelligence with us before this week’s events; now I have no doubt they will not be sharing critical information we’ll need for our defense.
And, finally, to all you Trumpers out there, I’m sure you are fine with this. After all, the US has paid too much into NATO and the other countries haven’t invested as much so they deserve what is happening. And Zelenskyy is a dictator with low approval ratings in his country. He’s a mediocre comedian who has conned the US out of hundreds of billions of dollars. And he is the SOB who is responsible for the war with Russia. All those comments are from Donald Trump and none of them are true. But you continue to follow this lying narcissist down this path as though he’s some “great thinker” with a “bigger plan” that “only he knows” and you will somehow end up doing great on the other end. You don’t want to see it but what is really happening is that he’s leading the US into the darkest times we’ve ever had. He’s not only ignoring climate change, he’s actively promoting increasing our contribution to it’s causes. After all, he won’t be here to see the results, right? But your children and grandchildren will. And, if nothing else, when that day comes, I hope they look back at you and wonder how you survived so long with your head up your ass.
Pogo says
@Laurel
100%
Now look at the proportion of the first five comments that are literally crackpot babbling…
Good night.
Ray W, says
Does every FlaglerLive reader remember when President Trump promised prior to the election that gasoline prices were going to quickly drop by 50% if he were elected?
Several weeks ago, I looked up the national average price for gasoline and diesel fuel, as of January 20th. Now that President Trump’s level of lying to the American people is reaching a crescendo during the Great Russian Appeasement of 2025, let’s look at what he promised:
Gasoline – 50% of $3.13 per gallon.
Diesel – 50% of $3.63 per gallon.
Anyone can figure out the 50% level of the price of the two fuels.
In December, many of the major American oil companies release their spending plans for the upcoming year. More than two months ago, I spotted a Bloomberg article headlined: “‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ Is Unlikely Under Trump, Exxon Says.”
At the time of the publication of the article, among many things, I was mulling over the merits of standing back and watching as Trump devotees drowned in their own spit. Now that they can see that Trump’s MO is to lie and that their duty is to spread his lies, it seems a good time to point out some of his lies.
Here are some bullet points from the article:
– The Upstream President of Exxon Mobil, Liam Mallon, told London conference attendees that US oil and gas producers did not intend to significantly raise output in coming years, despite Trump’s claims that the industry is going to “Drill, Baby, Drill.”
He said: “I think a radical change is unlikely because the vast majority, if not everybody, is primarily focused on the economics of what they are doing.” In other words, American oil companies have elected to maximize shareholder returns, which means they intend to keep oil prices high. Drilling for more oil works against that goal.
Even though Trump is expected to open federal lands for oil and gas drilling, Mallon told the attendees: “If those rules were substantially changed, you would be able to drill more, assuming you have the quality and met your economic threshold. … But I don’t think we’re going to see anybody in the drill, baby, drill mode. I really don’t.” Meaning that unless Trump makes it financially feasible for them to drill, by cutting taxes or some other executive action, the oil companies are not going to drill with abandon.
Exxon Mobil’s European oil rival, TotalEnergies SE, agreed. Its CEO, Patrick Pouyanne, said of Trump: “Maybe he has a magic recipe to push them to drill like mad.” He talked of U.S. oil producers committing to the return of cash to their shareholders, adding that “it’s not only decisions by politicians” that motivate American oil companies.
According to the reporter:
“The US is pumping more that 13 million barrels of crude a day, exceeding every other nation and up almost 45% in the last decade. With a surplus looming next year, the global oil market is watching to see at what rate American explorers drill new wells. Many of the biggest US operators are taking a long-term approach to production, weighing when to bring certain wells online against their overall inventory.”
Make of this what you will.
Me?
Returning cash to shareholders outweighs Trump’s campaign words. Oil companies will drill only when it benefits them. Months ago, I read an article about drilling threshold prices. Anything below $60 per barrel shuts down exploration efforts. Anything above $90 escalates exploration efforts. Anywhere in the middle and they may or may not drill, depending on profitability.
The vast majority of the Permian Basin, the nation’s largest oil patch, is privately owned. Leases were established decades ago. Companies know how much it costs to drill and the likely return on their investment. Pipelines from the Permian to Houston crisscross the entire oil patch.
There are more than a hundred thousand already permitted and drilled wells in the Permian Basin that can be redrilled with a horizontal drilling rig at little cost to the companies that already own the rights to drill.
Opening up federal lands for drilling is a waste of words. Oil-rich federal tracts in Alaska were twice put up for bid last year. One company bid on one tract during the first bidding period. No one bid during the second session. The problem? No pipelines from the federal land to the already existing North Shore pipeline that traverse the whole of Alaska down to the Kenai Peninsula. Even if you find oil, how do you get it to the pipeline?
The roads, rail lines and pipelines necessary to cheaply transport oil to refineries and ports do not exist on most federal lands. If the existing infrastructure costs the average oil company $25-$30 per barrel to horizontally drill in the Permian Basin, and the lack of infrastructure on federal lands means the cost to extract the oil will be $40 per barrel or higher, why should an oil company drill on previously unexplored federal land?
There is a reason that the Permian was producing less than a million barrel per day only a few short years ago and it is now producing more than five million barrels a day. Extraction costs over the years have dropped from the high $50 range to the mid-$20s range, due to improved technologies. The oil companies do not need to obtain permits for new wells in the Permian Basin. They don’t have to build pipelines to get the newly found Permian Basin oil to Houston.
I mentioned the Great Russian Appeasement of 2025.
In the last 24 hours, President Trump told the world that Zelensky has a 4% approval rating among the Ukrainian people. He culled that figure out of thin air, i.e., he was lying. The latest polls have the figure above 50%.
President Trump said Zelensky was an unelected dictator. This one he did not pull out of thin air. It is true that the Ukrainian constitution calls for elections at specified intervals. But there is a clause in the Ukrainian constitution that prohibits elections during times of martial law. I went to Snopes.com to check before I submitted this comment.
Early after the brutal and vicious assault on the Ukrainian people by Putin and the Russian Army, the national unity government of the Ukraine voted to impose martial law. Martial law has not yet been lifted.
As context, shortly after the German blitzkrieg began on May 10, 1940, Churchill was thrust into power by his fellow Conservative Party leaders. He quickly formed a national unity government, bringing into his cabinet leaders of all of Great Britain’s political parties. Clement Attlee, the Labour Party leader, was named Deputy Prime Minister. The new government voted to suspend Great Britain’s unwritten constitutional mandate of no more than a five-year period between elections.
Much preliminary election debate occurred prior to May 1945, but since the German surrender had not yet occurred, the election date issue was left unscheduled.
Germany capitulated early in May and the debate picked up again. Churchill argued that the earliest date would be in the middle of June, but the better date would be some time in October. Both prospective dates were outside the five-year period.
Some argued that the election should not be held until after Japan capitulated. This portion of the debate took place before the bomb had even been tested, much less deployed. Many in England believed that it would take 18 months to subdue Japan. As it turned out, the signing of surrender took place in Tokyo Bay on September 2, 1945.
Deputy Prime Minister Attlee favored the June date, so Churchill gave up his favored date and agreed to an early election. Since so many soldiers and support personnel were overseas in combat or occupation, it was agreed that all ballot boxes would be sealed and locked until July 20th to give time for overseas ballots to be delivered to Great Britain.
Churchill was at the Potsdam Conference with Stalin and Truman after the election and immediately prior to ballot counting day. After perhaps the greatest military combat and victory in the history of the British people, they voted him out of office. Five years later, he was voted back into office.
All but the most gullible of the millions of Trump followers have to be filled with cognitive dissonance right now. The lies he is crafting are so obvious, so yanked out of thin air, that the dissociation between reality and the lies cannot easily be reconciled. The Ukrainian people did not start the war, yet Trump says they did. Russia is not protecting itself from NATO; it is trying to steal an entire body of 44 million free people, complete with their educated class, their rich farmland, their Black Sea ports, their oil and natural gas deposits, their vast industrial base, their mineral deposits, everything. It is theft that the Russian’s seek. NATO nations, but one, knows this. The EU nations know this. Great Britain knows this.
Ukraine should not cede one square meter of their land.