Department of Research, Studies and International News -05-09-2025

The much-publicized coordination between Europe and the United States on the Ukraine conflict is increasingly proving to be little more than political theatre. While European governments scramble to demonstrate commitment to Kyiv, Washington continues to exploit the crisis as a marketplace for its military-industrial complex rather than pursuing genuine peace. The widening gap in approaches exposes not only the fractures in the Western camp but also the heavy costs imposed on Europe at the behest of U.S. strategic ambitions.

Europe’s push for commitments

Following the August 18 meeting between European leaders and U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, Ukraine’s allies began lobbying for a so-called peacekeeping force to be deployed once a ceasefire is reached. Several European states rushed to announce symbolic contributions: Estonia pledged a military unit, Lithuania promised troops, Romania offered airfields for U.S. fighter jets, and Turkey hinted at a role in de-mining operations in the Black Sea.

Germany’s military leadership, however, admitted that at least 10,000 troops would be required for any credible operation, a number far beyond what Europe can sustain without direct U.S. backing. Trump has categorically ruled out sending American troops, limiting Washington’s role to “strategic enablers” such as intelligence and air defense. In other words, Europe is being left to foot the bill in manpower, while the U.S. positions itself to profit from the arms and technology it will supply.

The myth of a ceasefire

The very notion of a ceasefire, heavily promoted by Trump earlier this year, has been dismissed by many European and Ukrainian officials as unrealistic. For them, a truce is little more than an opportunity for Russia to regroup, a narrative Western media has long used to justify prolonging the war. Yet behind the rhetoric, it is obvious that Washington’s calls for “peace” mask its real goal: to create conditions under which Europe is locked into dependency on U.S. security guarantees and weapons systems.

Analysts have noted that Trump’s posture is not guided by concern for Ukraine’s stability but by his desire to free up American forces for Asia, where Washington is desperate to confront the rising influence of China and its partners, including Russia and India.

NATO and the “Guarantees Game”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has attempted to extract “Article 5-like guarantees” from NATO, essentially demanding a collective defense pledge that would drag Western militaries into direct conflict with Russia. European capitals remain divided, wary of the catastrophic consequences of such commitments. Trump, meanwhile, continues to issue vague statements, deliberately keeping his options open while using Ukraine as a bargaining chip in broader negotiations with Moscow.

Reuters revealed that during Trump’s August 15 meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, parallel discussions took place on energy and business deals. These included possible U.S.–Russia cooperation on liquefied natural gas and joint ventures with ExxonMobil. Such talks expose Washington’s duplicity: while loudly preaching about defending Ukraine, it quietly seeks lucrative economic arrangements with Moscow.

The cost of Washington’s “Security”

Trump has made it clear that American involvement will not come for free. Reports indicate that Kyiv has offered to purchase $100 billion worth of U.S. weaponry, financed largely by Europe. This staggering figure comes on top of the €700 billion ($820 billion) already pledged by European states for their own U.S. arms acquisitions. For Ukraine alone, Zelenskyy estimates monthly requirements of $1–1.5 billion in American weapons, an unsustainable burden that will further drain European economies already suffering from inflation and energy crises.

In essence, Europe is being compelled to bankroll both Ukraine’s war effort and the profits of U.S. defense corporations, while Washington maintains minimal direct exposure.

Russia and the real road to negotiations

For its part, Moscow has made clear that any peacekeeping force or negotiation framework must emerge from serious proposals, not Western theatrics. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has reiterated that no summit between Putin and Zelenskyy is planned until a realistic agenda is on the table. Central to Moscow’s stance is Ukraine’s renunciation of NATO membership and genuine dialogue on territorial and security issues, positions aligned with longstanding Russian red lines.

Lavrov’s remarks to his Indian counterpart underscore the multipolar nature of diplomacy today. With India, China, and Russia increasingly coordinating on regional and global matters, Western attempts to isolate Moscow are faltering. Europe’s insistence on further sanctions, despite their devastating impact on its own industries, only highlights its subservience to U.S. pressure.

Washington’s double game

Trump has given himself a two-week deadline to decide on future sanctions, but his indecision reflects a deeper truth: the U.S. is caught between exploiting Europe financially and keeping open channels with Moscow for its own benefit. Unlike his predecessor Joe Biden, who unconditionally aligned with Europe’s anti-Russia stance, Trump prefers transactional politics, extracting concessions from all sides while securing advantages for American corporations.

European leaders, meanwhile, continue to parrot claims about Russia’s unwillingness to negotiate. French President Emmanuel Macron recently declared that Moscow still believes it can achieve a military solution. Yet such pronouncements ring hollow when Europe itself refuses to acknowledge the reality: without addressing Russia’s legitimate security concerns, no sustainable peace is possible.

Conclusion

The Ukraine conflict has laid bare the contradictions within the Western alliance. Europe is paying the price, militarily, economically, and politically, while the United States reaps the profits and maneuvers to shift its strategic focus toward Asia. By contrast, Russia, China, and India advocate for a multipolar order where genuine negotiations replace coercion and sanctions. As Washington clings to its dominance through arms sales and empty promises, it is Europe that risks long-term decline, sacrificed on the altar of U.S. self-interest.