Transatlantic Alliance Under Strain

With the announcement by the United States to withdraw its military support to Ukraine, the post-1945 transatlantic alliance between Europe and the USA appears to be experiencing considerable strain, prompting the NATO countries of Europe to reconsider their future course of action. Although anticipated since Donald J Trump assumed office on 20 January, the US announcement has sent shockwaves across Europe. President Trump has long expressed his frustration with European NATO members for failing to share the burden of maintaining their defense spending. He has also criticised Ukraine and its European allies for engaging in a prolonged, brutal and unwinnable war that has already claimed millions of lives and displaced many more on both sides of the frontline. 

This decision from the US government marks a sharp departure from the foreign policy priority pursued by the previous Democratic administration under Joe Biden, which was deeply committed to providing military support to Ukraine. But it aligns with the Trump administration's 'Make America Great Again' policy. Viewed alongside similar other announcements regarding Canada, Panama and Greenland, it becomes evident that the United States wants to consolidate its national interest rather than dispersing resources in international conflicts. 

Ramifications of war

President Trump's strong exchange with Volodimir Zelenskyy at the Oval Office earlier this week, where he strongly urged him to sign a deal with Russia, underscores his recognition of the serious ramifications of prolonged asymmetric war between Russia and Ukraine, especially with external powers fuelling the conflict. He demonstrated a clear understanding of what was at stake if the war was allowed to drag on. During the meeting, President Trump came close to scolding  Zelenskyy , saying, "you have no cards left, you are gambling with the lives of millions of people, you are gambling with the World War III'. He issued a stark ultimatum, either sign a deal or the US will walk away". 

Suddenly awakened to a bitter reality, the European countries are expressing their readiness to raise their defense spending from 3 per cent to 3.5 percent but analysts say that this increment would be too little and too late to be of any significance if the United States, disengages itself as a major contributor in bolstering NATO's defense capability. Despite the risk of the USA withdrawing from the Ukraine war, the EU countries are growing more and more obstreperous about their continued support to Ukraine in its war against Russia. Most of the NATO members are saying that Europe needs to be able to defend itself with or without the United States despite the asymmetric battlefield realities. 

According to an estimate, Europe needs 300,000 more troops and 250 billion pounds to deter Russia. However, independent defense analysts say that even this amount will be insufficient for containing much larger, more experienced and better equipped Russian army. Russia explains its attack on Ukraine as its attempt to push its national security threat farther away from its border, but the European countries fear that this aggression might be a part of a larger Russian project for expansion. For European countries, the battle-hardened Ukraine army is the most reliable guarantee for deterring Russian advance. That is why they want a continued supply of critical munitions to Ukraine. 

However, the worsening economic condition of Europe fuelled by high energy prices, declining production of machineries and inflation hardly allow these countries to supply more weaponries beyond the  present day stockpile which is said to be barely sufficient for their own national defense. With the military spending of 0.7 percent (Wolf at al, 2024) the production of the critically needed weapons looks difficult. In this dire situation, the component of military support provided by the United States is indispensable for Ukrainian resistance. The Patriot air defense system, which Ukrainian forces heavily depend on to shoot down Russian ballistic missiles, cannot be substituted by any other air defense system.

 Similarly, the US satellite communication system which is supporting Ukraine with critical intelligence on the location of troops' movement and the coordinates where tanks, armored vehicles and artillery systems are located, is also an inalienable asset. Without US war technology, the battlefield is likely to quickly shift against Ukraine creating a more favourable situation for Russia to further occupy the Ukrainian territories against the EU's commonsense that a continuous supply of weapons to Ukraine will help them to bring Russia to the negotiation table from a position of strength.

In the Security Summit organised in London last Sunday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that Britain was ready to help Ukraine "with boots on the ground and planes in the sky". European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen emphasised arming Ukraine to "basically turn it into a steel porcupine for any potential aggressor to digest it".  However, Russian newspapers in Moscow ridiculed the London summit as an exercise in futility, mocking it as 'flogging a dead horse'.

Currently, there are three plans of action to achieve a ceasefire in the Russia- Ukraine war. The first is the plan proposed by Zelenskyy and supported by EU countries and Britain. This approach advocates a continued supply of weapons to Ukraine, enabling it to negotiate with Russia from a position of strength while safeguarding its sovereignty and territory. But given the scale of incursion of Russia into Ukraine's territories and the constitutional measures that have been put in place to permanently annex the conquered territories, the effectiveness of this strategy remains uncertain.

Potential pathways to peace

As Ukraine's European partners deliberate about potential pathways to peace, Russia has put forward preconditions to a ceasefire. They include Ukraine's withdrawal from Donetsk, Luhansk, Japorazia and Kherson, abandoning the aspiration for NATO membership and a formal pledge of neutrality. Given the above demands and its battlefield gains, controlling over 20 per cent of Ukraine's territory, Russia is not likely to accept the first plan. The second option, on the other side, is too humiliating for Ukraine as well as its allies. 

But the grim reality of the front line and a dwindling supply of munitions to Ukraine leaves prospects for a more favourable solution increasingly slim. In this context, the third plan, proposed by the US administration, appears most pragmatic. Any peace deal at this stage may come with significant cost for Ukraine, and compromise, however imperfect, will be. Therefore, it is preferable to prolonged bloodshed.

 (Dr. Bharadwaj is a former ambassador and former chairperson of Gorkhapatra Corporation. bharadwajnarad@gmail.com.)