Transatlantic incorrect communication takes place, with the potential to produce far worse consequences from the oval office Contretemps between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky.
In the last month, Trump administration submitted several strong and sometimes conflicting messages in American Allies and partners in Europe. The shutdown of the signal in noise is not easy, but in the middle of a zigh, zags and bombast, it seems that the new administration seems to consider that Ukrainian and European leaders do not hear – or try to change.
The core of the message seems to be this: now will in a short time or cross from the end of the war in Ukraine or remove from the conflict unless it considers that Russia has interfere. (As Trump told Zelensky On Friday: “Or you will make an agreement or we’re out.”) Washington will refuse and to see behind, as in NATO in the direct war with Russia – as Trump sees him – if Russia is attacking in Ukraine.
The United States has a sovereign right to adopt this position, due to their own interests, which involve limiting costs and risks that the US is engaged in European defense. So Europe cannot distract now, but it can work with Washington to achieve American goals while finding the best possible arrangement for the protection of Ukraine, secure Europe and NATO preservation.
European leaders, however, hear another message – or two, to be precise. One version is maximum pessimistic: Europeans are afraid to align the trump card with Vladimir Putin and prepares to leave Ukraine and maybe a few more countries besides. Such an outcome remains possible. So far, however, there was no passage. The initial meeting for the opening of diplomatic relations with Russia, and the disturbing constant unwillness to condemn the Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, are significant moves, but they are a long way from Grand Geopolitical Displacement.
The second version is far more optimistic: European leaders are still assured by Trump to make a large American security guarantee in Ukraine. This effort was driving in British, French and Ukrainian leaders to visit the White House last week. In public remarks, all three tried to sell the trump card on the provision of American military force, who may be some 30,000 soldiers, who will be located in Ukraine after the fight is placed after the fight has stopped. Trump did not exclude a kind of American support for the European military contingent, but he pointed out a little willingness to put a lot of American muscle behind him. “I will not make security guarantees across many,” Trump told. “Let’s go to Europe to do it.”
On Friday, in an oval office, Zelenskyy challenged Trump’s attitude. Ukrainian President said straight: “We will never accept only (a) recieve.” Zelenskyy claimed that strong security guarantees had to come from the USA, not only Europe. The European military force, he said, wouldn’t work if they didn’t provide significant backstop now, “They need them now.”
In short, Zelensky insisted that he would not agree to a truce, because Russia would not honor that unless they did now exactly what Trump seemed to have already excluded. As the conversation conveyed, Trump eventually threatened that American would help Ukraine completely if Zelensky’s position did not change.
Since then, Zelenskyy didn’t pipe. Contrary to that, doubled. “If we cannot be accepted for NATO,” Zelenskyy says in the statement, “we need a clear structure of security guarantees from our Allies in the United States.” Only after such guarantees were offered, Ukraine would be treated by graduation to settle the war.
The European leaders immediately confirmed Zelenskyy. After meeting 18 leaders on Sunday, Keir Sparmermer announced That the European “Coalition will” prepared for the placing of military force in Ukraine to guarantee peace. He threw that he would put British “field boots and airplanes” – in one state: “This effort must have strong US support”.
For years, officials and experts across the Atlantic have discussed the merits of providing security guarantees in Ukraine. But the practical reality is that Trump administration is not inclined to do so, not if you undertake, de jure or de facto, in the future, in the name of Ukraine in the future. That the position of the presidents of the United States should be understandable.
None of the Trump’s predecessors ever took over to fight for Ukraine. Joe Biden explicitly excluded sending American troops when he saw her coming in full invasion in a full scale. Neither in Ukraine’s direct defense have no NATO allies. The reason is obvious: he would think of war with Russia, the appearance that NATO allies can still be distracted regardless of what is happening in Ukraine.
If Ukraine and Europe continue to push for strong American security guarantees, they have a small chance for success and a higher chance to create a permanent rupture with Trump. The president could conclude that his allies refuse to listen to and, upstairs, continue to try to catch him. Throwing his hands, he could take the actions themselves, which in Ukraine and Europe wants to avoid most: cutting all American support in Ukraine and to deal with a path. The damage could be expanded across Europe if the tombstone removes US military forces and property from the region.
Can this worst scenario be avoided? The route is still available. As soon as possible in Ukraine and Europe, they stop fixing at the US Security Guarantee, as soon as possible – with the United States – around a sustainable plan containing two main provisions.
First, Požwar Ukraine would hold large and technologically advanced military, trained and supply to their western partners. Second, the United States and Europe would be strongly committed to Ukraine if Russia has reconnected. Because now they are working, this commitment would be very credible, unlike heroic promise for the wages of the war in the name of Ukraine. NATO allies could also sign a legally binding document and weapon systems for specific weapons that could be cut in Ukraine in the event of a renewed attack.
This formula can fall from what I want Ukrainians, but can provide what they need. After all, Ukraine’s own forces protected the country in the current conflict, preserving 80% of Ukrainian territory and forced Russia to expensive war. If these forces remain strong, it would hardly be hard to conclude that Putin or his successor will make another attempt – not because the Kremlin can believe that he would keep his word, but because it would suffer huge losses for a small gain.
Ukraine, Europe and the United States must use their impact on the negotiating table so that Russia stops fighting without the need for Ukraine to disarm. Russia could agree, retained Ukraine from NATO and NATO, and the forces of his members from Ukraine. In order to achieve an agreement, however, the transatlantic community should be gathered, post rush and throw its weight behind common demand.
In order to otherwise make judicial catastrophes not only for Ukraine, but for European security as a whole.
2025-03-03 08:00:00
