No one doubts that the United States is NATO’s top dog, with its military budget having served as the backbone of European security for decades. But as representatives of the 32 NATO member states filed into alliance headquarters on Thursday under Belgian drizzle, with news that Donald Trump had agreed to “immediately” start peace talks with Vladimir Putin over Ukraine just sinking in, it seemed more obvious than ever just how much Washington calls the shots here.
Apparently, the rainclouds weren’t the only thing going right over their heads.
Will the US force Ukraine into a bad peace deal with Russia?
From what we know, Trump did not consult or brief European allies before picking up the phone to Russian President Vladimir Putin. At NATO, many even seemed somewhat relieved that he followed up with a call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Premature concessions to Vladimir Putin?
After Washington suggested that Ukraine would likely have to cede territory and scale back its NATO membership hopes, the US faced accusations of offering concessions to Moscow.
“It would have been better to talk about Ukraine’s possible NATO membership or the country’s possible loss of territory at the negotiating table first and not take it off the table beforehand,” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius told reporters in Brussels.
EU foreign affairs and security chief Kaja Kallas, who was invited to join the NATO talks, was similarly critical.
“Why are we giving [Russia] everything they want even before the negotiations have started?” she said to DW and other outlets on the sidelines of the talks. “It’s appeasement. It has never worked.”
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted the US was not betraying Ukraine. But when pressed on whether the US would also spell out concessions Russia might have to make, he wouldn’t be drawn, instead saying: “The arguments that have been made that somehow coming to the table right now is making concessions to Vladimir Putin outright that the President of the United States shouldn’t otherwise make — I just reject that at its face.”
“I challenge anyone else to think of a world leader at this moment who, with credibility and strength, could bring those two leaders to the table and forge a durable peace that ultimately serves the interests of Ukraine,” he added.
Europe demands seat at the table
With Trump’s solo effort rattling allies, many defense ministers gathered at NATO on Thursday laid out a clear demand: That Europe and Ukraine aren’t sidelined in future talks.
“Any deal behind our backs will not work. Any agreement will need also Ukraine and Europe being part of it,” Kallas said.
Some European states also seem keen to remind Washington thatpast ceasefire deals signed by Russia and Ukraine did little to stop Moscow launching a full-scale invasion in 2022.
“If we want to sustainably repel the threat [of Russian invasion] and ensure peace, we will have to do more and better,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot wrote on X.
Lacking leverage over US decisions?
But while countries across Europe have been ramping up military spending since 2022, sending weapons to Kyiv and training Ukrainian troops for battle, they’re still far from self-sufficient in terms of defense, relying instead on US military support.
Burno Lete, a researcher focused on defense and transatlantic ties at the College of Europe, said this leaves Europe with little leverage to counter US policy decisions.
“The West started to fall apart last night,” Lete concluded, suggesting that translantic cooperation was giving way to US preferences.
Now, with Trump apparently pushing ahead on the issue of the war in Ukraine without seeking European support or consensus, not only is Western cohesion at stake, but also European security interests.
Some of Ukraine’s staunchest political and military backers are Baltic states which, as former members of the Soviet bloc, fear the Kremlin could set its sights on their borders next if emboldened by a deal to end its war in Ukraine that is particularly favorable to Russian interests.
Lithuanian Defense Minister Dovilė Sakaliene said on Thursday that Europe faced “two very obvious choices,” in this regard: “Whether we decide to fall under the illusion that Mr Trump and Mr Putin are going to find a solution for all of us — and that would be a deadly trap — or we, as Europe, embrace our own economic, financial and military capacity.”
European boots on the ground?
Some insist Europe does have a meaningful chance to wield influence moving forward. European Council on Foreign Relations fellow Camille Grand said that European states have a “number of cards” to play in this regard.
“[Europeans] provide the bulk of financial assistance to Ukraine,” Grand said, pointing to Ukraine’s path toward joining the European Union. “Reconstruction of Ukraine is likely to be largely funded by Europe,” he explained from the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference.
The US has publicly ruled out deploying its own troops in any future Ukraine peacekeeping mission, instead saying “capable European and non-European troops” should be on-the-ground backers of any future security guarantees.
Crucially, Hegseth specified that any such peacekeepers in Ukraine must not be considered as part of a NATO mission, and should therefore not be protected by NATO’s Article 5 collective defense pledge.
Researcher Camille Grand thinks that gives Europe an opportunity.
“The US is asking Europe to provide the security guarantee in the form of European ‘boots on the ground.’ These are all critical elements of a deal acceptable for Ukraine and for European security.”
“Europeans need to make clear that they stand ready to play the role proposed,” he said, “but they expect in return to have a seat at the table and to shape a settlement that would allow to build a solid and lasting peace.”
US stance on Ukraine war ‘a wake-up call for Europeans’
Edited by: Maren Sass