Donald Trump is Undermining the Transatlantic Alliance

Europe is scrambling to respond to an unprecedented assault on the transatlantic partnership—the bedrock of peace and security in Europe for nearly 80 years. What was once an unshakeable alliance is now unraveling, as President Donald Trump’s administration has upended decades of American foreign policy. The final straw came when Trump repeated Kremlin talking points, falsely accusing Ukraine of starting its war with Russia and labeling Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky as a "dictator."

This dramatic shift in American foreign policy began on February 12th, when U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth informed European allies that the United States would no longer be the "primary guarantor" of their security. Just two days later, at the Munich Security Conference, Vice President J.D. Vance took the stage and launched a blistering attack on Europe. Rather than discussing Ukraine or Russia, he criticized Europe's handling of free speech and immigration, warning that “the biggest threat to Europe isn’t Russia. It’s from within.” Vance’s support for the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), a party so extreme it is under surveillance, and his meeting with its leaders, struck many Europeans as a direct assault on their values. As one German politician put it: “It seems they are out to get us.”

In the midst of this crisis, European leaders began to wonder if this Munich conference might be as defining as the infamous one in 1938, when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler, or the one at Yalta in 1945, when the Allied powers divided Europe. For the first time since World War II, Europe’s democracies are now forced to contemplate standing against tyranny without the United States' support—and considering how much their armed forces would need to expand to defend themselves credibly.

Fear of Abandonment: A Munich-like Capitulation to Putin?

The fear that Trump might force a Munich-style capitulation to Russian President Vladimir Putin grew more palpable on February 18th, when senior American and Russian officials met for the first time since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine three years ago. Although the talks were ostensibly aimed at ending the war, no European or Ukrainian representatives were included. Afterward, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio seemed to hand Putin a symbolic victory, praising “potentially historic economic partnerships” between Russia and America, leading some to joke that the talks were held because Ukraine was "on it."

Trump’s transactional approach to foreign relations has only deepened Europe’s anxiety. Earlier, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent visited Kyiv and demanded that Ukraine hand over rights to $500 billion worth of critical minerals in exchange for American aid. Much of this mineral wealth is in Russian-controlled areas, and America has reportedly asked Russia to negotiate access. At the Munich conference, American officials initially pressured Ukraine to sign an agreement, before backing off and opting to continue talks.

A Burden That Falls Heavily on Europe

Europe's leaders have long been aware that they might eventually have to shoulder more of the defense burden. During his first term, Trump repeatedly threatened to pull back from NATO unless European members increased their defense spending to meet the 2% of GDP target set after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014. Progress has been made: 23 out of 32 NATO members are now meeting the target. But even so, many European forces continue to shrink, and few anticipated a scenario in which they would face Russian aggression without American backing—a situation where the 2% target would be woefully insufficient.

This was starkly illustrated during two emergency summits called by French President Emmanuel Macron on February 17th and 19th. The talks were focused on sending troops to Ukraine to guarantee its security if a peace agreement acceptable to Zelensky were reached, as well as financing European rearmament and continued support for Ukraine. Macron's proposal for European troop deployments has garnered support from British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who is open to contributing British forces. But many other European leaders, fearing they are already overstretched, have resisted the idea. Poland’s President Donald Tusk, for instance, has ruled out any Polish contributions.

The Challenge of Scaling European Forces

Given that Russia’s army is now nearly 600,000 strong, a European force deployed to Ukraine would need to be sizable to have any deterrent effect, notes Matthew Savill of the Royal United Services Institute. For the UK, this might mean deploying a brigade, enhanced with air defenses and supported by jet fighters. Yet, with only 73,000 soldiers in its active army, this would leave Britain dangerously stretched, especially when factoring in its commitments in Estonia.

When five NATO allies examined the feasibility of a deployment, they realized that European land forces would be spread too thin, potentially creating gaps in NATO’s defensive lines. A former U.S. official familiar with the planning noted that it would be "a gift to Putin" if European forces weakened their presence in frontline states. To mitigate this, France and Britain are working on a "reassurance force," primarily reliant on air power with a limited number of ground troops.

Whatever form the force takes, there is broad consensus that America would need to provide intelligence, air defense, and air cover, not just for logistical reasons, but to deter Russia from testing the deployment. Sir Keir Starmer and Macron will soon travel to Washington to discuss these options. However, many European officials believe that if America remains absent from such operations, it could significantly undermine their credibility and effectiveness.

Preparing for a Yalta-style Partition?

Amid these discussions, some Europeans fear that Trump might pursue a Yalta-style partition of Europe, dividing it into Western and Russian spheres of influence. This concern stems from Putin's 2021 demands that NATO roll back its military presence in central and eastern Europe to the borders that existed in 1997. While Russia has not made those demands in its formal negotiations, many European leaders worry that Trump might view such a deal as a potential compromise, especially over Ukraine.

Some American diplomats share this worry. Julie Smith, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, warned that Trump could agree to withdraw the 20,000 American troops that President Biden sent to Europe after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. If these troops were pulled back, European allies like Britain, France, and Germany might hesitate to maintain their own forces on NATO’s eastern front, potentially weakening the alliance.

A particularly alarming prospect is that Trump could withdraw the 30,000–40,000 U.S. troops based in Germany. This could risk destabilizing NATO's defense posture and would embolden Russia, some experts fear. Additionally, there are growing concerns that Trump’s recent talk of "denuclearizing" with Russia could endanger the U.S. nuclear umbrella in Europe, which includes tactical nuclear weapons deployed in several European countries.

The Path Forward: Europe Takes Charge

As unsettling as it is, Europe is slowly realizing that it may have to take on a much larger role in its own defense. Britain, for instance, is considering increasing its defense spending to at least 3% of GDP by the end of the decade. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has suggested activating an “escape clause” in EU budget rules to allow member states to significantly boost defense spending. In addition, €93 billion in unused COVID recovery funds could be diverted to defense.

Should a peace deal require European troop deployments to Ukraine, the costs would be astronomical. Alternatively, if diplomacy fails and the war continues, Europe could face the entire financial burden of military aid—if Trump steps back. Estimates suggest that $50 billion could cover America’s shortfall in aid for one year, but sourcing enough weapons would still be a major challenge, especially as European arms industries are already stretched thin.

In the worst-case scenario, Trump could withdraw American troops from Europe and potentially abandon the nuclear deterrent that has safeguarded Europe for decades. While this remains unlikely for now, it is no longer as implausible as it seemed just a few weeks ago. In private, some European officials are already exploring ways to prepare for such a scenario, including accelerating the procurement of long-range missiles and bolstering nuclear consultations with Britain and France.

A Dangerous Paradox

The paradox of the current situation is that both Europe and America need each other more than ever. Europeans are facing the uncomfortable reality that their chief security guarantor is not only growing more distant but actively hostile. As they hedge against American retrenchment, they are also left with no choice but to engage with Trump, despite his erratic diplomacy. But if Trump truly wants a deal with staying power, he will need European support—and troops. For that, he must recommit America to Europe's security, rather than pursue a dangerous Yalta-like carve-up of the continent.

As the haggling and nail-biting continue, Europe’s future—and that of Ukraine—hang in the balance.