Europe Needs A New Strategy Too
The new US National Security Strategy helps - or forces - European leaders to let go of the consuming transatlantic crisis management efforts and to focus on an own strategy instead.
Previously this year, I wrote about Europe’s Trump dilemma: still formally treaty ally, the US is acting more often than not in a way that undermines European security. Especially given Ukraine’s need for US air defence systems (mainly Patriot), humouring Trump was distasteful but necessary. Europe was able to avert much worse outcomes and limit Trump’s ability to do harm by patiently manoeuvring him back in line after each outburst. However, the grovelling strategy always had an expiration date. That date has now definitively passed, with the latest peace plan shenanigans and the publication of the new US National Security Strategy (NSS) yesterday.
The US NSS is in its characteristic ugliness actually a useful document from a European perspective. It codifies in policy, in black and white, what has been evident all year long: Trump and his people are openly hostile to Europe. Once it is spelled out in the NSS, European leaders cannot ignore or explain the fact away anymore. Any hope to sit this out and for things to go back to the old normal looks increasingly ludicrous and politically unviable.
Furthermore, the Trump administration’s eagerness to interfere in European affairs in favour of the far right have promising potential to backfire. As I wrote in February, that was a likely outcome of the approach most fervently driven by JD Vance. Especially claims in the NSS such as “[a] large European majority wants peace, yet that desire is not translated into policy, in large measure because of those governments’ subversion of democratic processes” are just the kind of good stuff that may well trigger an anti-reaction among those “patriotic European parties” that this US administration seeks to support. Given Trump’s pretty uniform unpopularity in Europe - with the highest approval rating in Italy at 28 percent in a recent YouGov poll - any uninvited “[c]ultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations” may well end up damaging the European far right.
What comes to the hysteria about mass immigration, it is almost a bit amusing that the NSS mentions the following:
“Over the long term, it is more than plausible that within a few decades at the latest, certain NATO members will become majority non-European. As such, it is an open question whether they will view their place in the world, or their alliance with the United States, in the same way as those who signed the NATO charter.”
…because that is a longstanding European concern with regard to the US and its commitment to NATO. This is some Russian-style projection and of one’s own issues onto others.
Perhaps fourth time’s a charm: Europeans should by now have enough data on the Trump administration’s repeatedly failed efforts to end Russia’s war in Ukraine so that they can start crafting a more proactive strategy with the confidence that Trump will not be able to coerce Ukraine into just any kind of deal. The main issue is probably that Trump and his people are trying to end “the Ukraine war” without understanding that it is Russia’s war in Ukraine. On the other hand, it has become sufficiently clear that any amount of “Trump whispering” won’t fundamentally change the administration’s course on Ukraine or Europe more broadly. The forces pulling the other way within the administration are strong enough to withstand European efforts at good faith cooperation.
Europeans know that Russia hasn’t shown any signs of serious willingness to negotiate in good faith, so it is understandable that working on a peace (or even ceasefire) plan has not been the main priority in Europe. But the fact that the Trump administration at regular intervals throws a curveball at Ukraine and Europe, and every time Europe looks equally stupid, with only a crisis management strategy but nothing of substance of its own to offer. By the way, I was looking for sources with the search words “Russia rejects US peace plan/ ceasefire deal” and found media articles from December 2024, January 2025, March 2025, April 2025 (twice), May 2025, and August 2025. And that was just a quick Google search. So my faith in Russia’s continued efforts to thwart any efforts to end the war seems justified.
But the European counterproposals are every time a bit lazy, too. Europe keeps firmly rejecting territorial concessions, limitations to Ukraine’s defence forces, or any provisions on Ukraine’s future EU and/or NATO membership without consulting the organisations, as they should. All of these are obviously unacceptable conditions for Russia - because no one has so far made a real effort to make Russia accept them. It is therefore evident that when European leaders comment on the latest “peace plan” that is thrown at them, and talk about European red lines, they are signalling to the US – trying to remind Trump once again what goes and what doesn’t – not to Russia. Europeans know very well that their insistence on Ukraine’s rights will be rejected by Russia, until the situations becomes dire enough for the Kremlin to have to start making concessions. But just waiting for that to magically happen is not a strategy, and Ukrainians don’t have all the time in the world.
That is why Europe needs to finally seize the initiative and stop wasting time trying to manage Trump. If Europeans themselves drive the agenda, together with Ukraine, they will not constantly be caught off guard and need to manage yet another crisis. It is therefore time for Europe to formulate clear conditions under which real negotiations can take place. If Europeans made a concerted – and professional – diplomatic effort to communicate to Russia not only “as long as it takes” but what it really takes, it could actually lead somewhere.
And, even more importantly: start squeezing Russia to inspire greater interest in actual negotiations. Finally mobilizing the frozen Russian assets is crucial in this regard. The clock is ticking ahead of the European Council meeting on 18 December, which is expected to be the last possibility to solve the problem on time. Only that way Europeans can nip future US “peace plans” in the bud and force Russia to stop playing around.
Thanks for this analysis Minna! You're spot on imho that we should focus on a European strategy to stop Russia in Ukraine. There's no other option. Russia under Putin will only negotiate if Europe forces them to do so. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Ukraine is quite capable of defending using an attrition strategy, but that's already last for years. So somethings gotta give. Ukraine needs money, the frozen assets have to be used now. A second thing, send what we have now. So yes, Gripens C/D, Meteors and of course the Taurus, bring it on. Third, Crimea is Ukraine. The Kerch bridge needs to go. Fourth, Europe has to start operation Sky Shield. The energy sector in Ukraine won't last very long if we don't intervene. That would be a starting point for the coalition of willing. Except, nobody in Western Europe is willing to throw their armies into a war their own people don't support. Yes, we have a thing on our hands with alt right movements. They’re popular and pro Russia. Putin is actually funding alt right movements in Western Europe and it certainly has paid off. So, unless Putin attacks UK, Poland, France or Germany directly, there won't be much hope for military intervention. No boots on the ground for sure. The option for air support however, is still out in the open.
It is unfortunate, but true, that the US, under the Trump regime, cannot be trusted. I have maintained ever since his catastrophic "election" that Ukraine and Europe must be prepared to create their own foreign policy initiatives and look to an alternative defense structure outside of NATO. Of course, it is not possible to disengage from eighty years of cooperative defense planning overnight. But the impetus to begin planning for such an eventuality has been obvious for months as Trump's Russocentric policy statements have become bolder. The skeleton of a new European defense organization already exists, as outlined in the Nordic Defense Cooperation (NORDEFCO) agreement. Europe cannot continue waiting and hoping that a change in a US administration will see a reversion to a pre-Trump foreign policy. It is a new world order in the making, and Europe must not be found dithering...as usual.