A disastrous White House meeting has crystallised fears in Kyiv and Europe over their indispensable ally’s reliability
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s February 28 meeting with US President Donald Trump ended disastrously, with the two arguing publicly and Zelensky not signing a planned deal on Ukraine’s mineral resources. Trump suggested that US support for Ukraine would be withdrawn unless Zelensky accepts a US-brokered peace deal. With almost USD4bn of US military aid in jeopardy, Ukraine and its European allies face a huge challenge.
What next
Subsidiary Impacts
- US allies across the world will reluctantly consider the reliability of US security guarantees.
- Economic and fiscal weaknesses will limit Europe’s ability to increase defence spending significantly.
- Ukraine may seek to involve China in future peace negotiations to fill any gap left by the United States.
- Some European states may use a reduction in US involvement as a pretext to scale back their commitments.
Analysis
Zelensky visited the White House on February 28 for talks with Trump and to sign a US-initiated deal on the future exploitation of Ukraine’s mineral resources (see UNITED STATES: Congress will remain quiet on Ukraine – February 27, 2025 ).
However, the meeting descended into acrimony when Zelensky disagreed with US Vice President JD Vance over the prospects for a lasting diplomatic solution to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The core source of disagreement is likely over how many concessions Kyiv will need to make to Moscow to achieve the Trump-initiated peace deal and the extent to which the United States would serve as a guarantor.
The end of US support for Ukraine?
The Oval Office confrontation has intensified tensions between Washington and Kyiv, while exacerbating serious concerns over the future of US security support for Ukraine and NATO.
Trump’s reaction and several unconfirmed US media reports suggest that a halt to US military assistance to Ukraine is now a realistic possibility. With USD3.85bn still allocated for weapons from US stockpiles and an additional USD1.5bn in frozen State Department military financing, the fate of Washington’s support now hangs in the balance.
Trump has announced no new aid packages and is not obligated to utilise existing funds. He seems to offer Kyiv a choice: negotiate a settlement on Moscow’s terms or fight on without the backing of its most important military ally.
US options
Trump’s rhetorical position on Ukraine can be subject to sudden changes, creating uncertainty over the direction US policy might take. Now he has several options:
- reducing or ending material and financial military aid, but continuing to provide vital intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) support;
- ending all assistance, including ISR and logistical support;
- a return to the minerals deal, which may be possible if Zelensky stages a public climbdown;
- pressuring his European allies to compel Zelensky to sign a deal on Russian terms; or
- seeking a leadership change in Kyiv, so there is a president more amenable to Trump’s wishes.
US support for NATO in question
The consequences of the dramatic diplomatic rift exposed in the Oval Office extend beyond Ukraine. A diminished US role in European security will weaken NATO and challenge the foundational principle of collective defence.
The opening of high-level US talks with Russia in February had already raised fears that Washington will move closer to Moscow, regardless of the views of its European allies (see EUROPE: Ukraine unity will be severely tested – February 17, 2025 and see UNITED STATES: Ukraine U-turn is part of wider shift – February 20, 2025). The values gap between Washington and its NATO allies today appears greater than at any point since 1949, when the North Atlantic Treaty was signed.
European NATO members, already concerned about their weaker military capabilities after years of underfunding, must now prepare for a potential US withdrawal from Europe — and the shorter-term possibility that it cannot rely on the United States in the event of a military crisis. This fundamentally alters the balance of power on the continent.
Europe to the rescue?
Although European NATO countries possess substantial military assets, their military capabilities remain heavily reliant on US assets, especially force ‘enablers’, such as strategic airlift, aerial refuelling and ISR capabilities. The United States also has significantly larger, more advanced fighting capabilities and deployable forces.
Europe will not be able to replace key US capabilities
As a result, the practicalities of rapidly mobilising and coordinating European assets without US support present enormous challenges in the short term. The sudden need to independently manage these functions would require substantial investment and time to develop equivalent capacities.
These deficiencies will hinder Europe’s hopes of covering some vital gaps if US support for Ukraine is withdrawn, even though the continent has given more aid to Ukraine than the United States.
The prospect of deploying European troops to Ukraine as part of a ‘reassurance force’ has been discussed among NATO members. Zelensky has suggested that more than 100,000 European troops might be necessary to deter further Russian aggression. However, Western officials have indicated a force this size is not feasible.
Production capacity constraints
Europe’s defence industry would need significant expansion to meet the heightened demands of both supporting Ukraine and building up its own defences. It has boosted output since the conflict started — currently producing 2 million artillery rounds annually — but this is insufficient to sustain Ukraine’s defence while replenishing their own stockpiles.
Crucially, Europe sources a significant proportion of its weapons from the United States and other global suppliers, such as South Korea and Israel, which complicates efforts to achieve self-sufficiency.
Can Ukraine keep fighting without US support?
The loss of US assistance would pose significant challenges for Ukraine’s ability to resist Russia’s invasion.
While Ukraine still has reserves of men and equipment and could lower its conscription age from 25 to bolster its military ranks, war fatigue is becoming increasingly evident. Public confidence in Ukraine’s defence has declined, with recent polls showing that only 23% of Ukrainians believe the war is progressing successfully, down from 85% two years ago.
Ukraine could continue fighting without US aid, but it would be much weakened
Beyond manpower, advanced weaponry and ammunition availability remains a critical concern. Many of Ukraine’s key military systems, including Patriot missile defences and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), rely on US-manufactured components and spare parts. Without continued US support, maintaining these systems will be increasingly difficult.
The loss of ISR support, including access to the Starlink satellite communication system — owned by Elon Musk’s SpaceX and contracted to supply Ukraine by the Pentagon — could be catastrophic as it is not a capability that Europe could replace.
Ukraine can produce an impressive array of capable aerial drones, which have proven to be one of the most important technologies on the modern battlefield (see RUSSIA: The importance of aerial drones will rise – January 15, 2025). Its forces have also proven adept at organising defensive operations that impose a high cost on Russian forces for their creeping advances.
Outlook
Although there is no immediate danger of Ukrainian forces running low on equipment or munitions, the supply situation would likely become more challenging later in the year. The loss of US support could also damage morale, hinder recruitment and so weaken Ukraine’s military (see UKRAINE: Manpower shortages will hamper military – January 13, 2025).
