By Nina Bachkatov
A week of geopolitical upheaval has dramatically altered how Ukraine and its allies intended to mark the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion. The catalyst was former President Donald Trump’s blunt revelation that he had spoken for 90 minutes with Russian President Vladimir Putin—an announcement that came as a complete surprise to both Ukraine and the European Union, who were only informed after the fact. Trump’s message was unambiguous: Ukraine will not join NATO; the United States will not deploy troops but supports European nations doing so; Russia will retain control over occupied territories; and American assistance to Ukraine will be dictated by U.S. financial interests. Moreover, Washington and Moscow would hold further talks in Saudi Arabia.
The choice of venue spoke volumes. Once a pariah state following the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi Arabia presided over the meeting. To its right, a trio of American officials representing Trump’s new administration; to its left, two seasoned Russian diplomats, veterans of Moscow’s foreign policy machinery. In the background stood Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, emblematic of the business-geopolitical nexus that both Trump and Putin value.
Return to Bilateralism
The meeting’s agenda centred on resetting U.S.-Russia relations, with discussions spanning trade, arms control, and other global issues—Ukraine included, but as just one among many topics. The overt focus on bilateral diplomacy sought to temper European and Ukrainian indignation at their exclusion. Yet this shock followed hard on the heels of U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference, which upended long-held assumptions about NATO’s future, the sanctity of Article 5, and Washington’s alignment with European opposition to rewarding the Kremlin’s aggression. The new American narrative, which would only gain momentum in subsequent days, was that the war had dragged on for too long, Ukraine could not win militarily, and President Volodymyr Zelensky bore responsibility for prolonging the conflict.
For European leaders, this was a brutal wake-up call. Many had dismissed Trump’s campaign rhetoric as electoral bombast, only to find that the leader of the “free world” now openly prioritised American interests over those of even its closest allies. The imperative for Washington to re-engage with Russia, Trump argued, was strategic—encompassing nuclear arms negotiations, economic opportunities, and broader geopolitical stability. Facing mounting accusations of betrayal, Trump attempted to deflect: he was not pro-Putin, he insisted, but pro-peace—unlike his predecessor, who had failed to prevent the war.
European Disarray
In both Munich and Riyadh, the U.S. position was made clear: Ukraine is Europe’s problem, albeit one that will receive limited American political and defence support. Stunned European officials huddled in frantic discussions on the sidelines of the Munich conference, struggling to reconcile their strategic contradictions and institutional shortcomings. While leaders rushed to reassure Zelensky of their continued backing—expressing their own frustration with Washington’s stance—the response lacked coherence.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen vowed that the EU would stand with Ukraine “for as long as necessary.” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas hastily convened a meeting of EU-27 foreign ministers. French President Emmanuel Macron called an emergency summit at the Élysée Palace, attended by a select group of EU leaders, von der Leyen, and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. Yet despite the warm gestures and displays of unity, the summit yielded little concrete progress—only vague discussions on European troop deployments and the realities of national constraints. A subsequent meeting on February 19 brought in additional European leaders and Canada, but soon von der Leyen was attending a summit in Barbados, praising Caribbean nations for their support of Ukraine, while Kallas was in South Africa for the G20 ministerial meeting—where Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was present, but his American counterpart, Marco Rubio, was not.
These disjointed reactions underscored the enduring question famously posed by Henry Kissinger: whom should one call when seeking to speak to Europe? If the EU wished to be at the negotiating table, who would represent it (Commission, Council, Parliament, External Action) —and with what mandate? The broader issue of Europe’s capacity to act independently, both militarily and financially, loomed large. On February 1, von der Leyen and European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde had published an op-ed in the Financial Times calling for urgent measures to address the EU’s declining competitiveness. Now, von der Leyen’s team was reportedly exploring complex mechanisms to redirect billions towards Ukraine and a future European defence initiative.
Putin’s Calculated Restraint
Both Kyiv and Brussels appeared to hope that Trump’s unfiltered approach would backfire, forcing him to walk back his stance and creating an opening for renewed European leadership. There was also speculation that Putin might overplay his hand by outright rejecting Trump’s overtures, potentially triggering the former U.S. president’s ire. However, Moscow’s official response was notably measured. Lavrov and Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov insisted that the Riyadh talks were focused on U.S.-Russia bilateral relations, that Ukraine would require separate negotiations, and that Putin remained open to a meeting with Zelensky “under certain conditions.” The Kremlin was careful to avoid any triumphant rhetoric.
Putin’s challenge lies in managing Trump’s unpredictability. While Trump’s rhetoric has echoed many of Putin’s longstanding arguments—questioning Zelensky’s legitimacy, scrutinising corruption on foreign aid, and advocating for a swift end to the war—the Kremlin must also be wary of Trump going too far. A narrative of U.S.-Russia collusion at Ukraine’s expense risks alienating Russia’s allies in the BRICS and the Global South, as Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has already hinted.
Moreover, Putin seeks more than rhetorical victories. He wants sanctions eased and a resumption of mutually beneficial economic ties with the U.S. At the same time, he must balance domestic considerations: ordinary Russians will not accept a selling off national resources, and oligarchs will resist competition from American businesses in lucrative sectors. Even as Trump’s vision for U.S.-Russia relations aligns with many of Putin’s interests, the Kremlin recognises that an overzealous Trump could create new risks—ones that Moscow would prefer to navigate with caution.
As Trump’s new foreign policy stance reverberates across Europe, one reality is inescapable: the EU now finds itself at a crossroads, forced to grapple with strategic autonomy in a world where American guarantees can no longer be taken for granted.