Western Unity On The Rocks?

As the fallout of February 28 sharp differences and tense exchanges between the US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the Oval Office in camera spilled into the public domain, it continues to make headlines across the world. President Trump wants an immediate end to the war in Ukraine. He had promised the American people during his election campaign and also pledged at his inauguration on January 20. President Zelensky was seeking security guarantees from the US. 

Addressing the Munich Security Conference on February 13, 2025, US Vice President JD Vance told European leaders that the threat to Europe’s security is from within, and due to “the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, not from any external actor Russia, or China.” He also advised them to “embrace what your people tell you.” The US has been asking European countries “to be careful” about the continent’s “big immigration problem.” He told them, “No voter in this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants.”  

Geopolitical calculations

In larger geopolitical calculations, it seemed intended to convey an emerging truth that Europe can no longer rely on the perpetual comfort of the American security umbrella. Trump’s Europe policy, Walter Russell Mead wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “is likely to have one of two outcomes. It could function as shock therapy, jolting Europeans into making the changes that could renew European strength and offering hope for a new and more realistic alliance. Or it could mark the beginning of the end of the trans-Atlantic community that gave Europe its longest era of relative peace since the peak of the Roman Empire.” Le Monde, a leading French daily, editorialised, “The rift between Europe and the United States is deep and historic.” The daily referred to “uncertainty about the Trump team’s intention” toward “Ukraine and European security more generally.” 

Earlier visits to the White House by the French President and British Prime Minister were focused on securing American commitment to the security of Europe, should European nations choose to deploy troops in Ukraine. For Ukraine, the deal appeared as a way to secure American protection against Russia in which US leadership showed no interest.  Ukraine held the view that such an investment would have helped reclaim its lost territories and its protection. However, there are competing interests at play, further complicating the path to any meaningful peace agreement.  

Many people believe that European countries deploying peacekeeping forces in Ukraine without US support will not deter Russia from future military actions. Since Russia’s one reason to invade Ukraine was the eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the deployment of peacekeepers is viewed by Moscow as a precursor to NATO’s presence at its doors. The US and some European countries understand that Moscow would categorically reject such a move. 

There is no strategic coherence in European narratives, creating a sort of stalemate between Europe and the United States. Stark differences are noticed. The US made a radical departure as reflected in the UN votes on the war’s third anniversary, while Europe continued to maintain that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was an unprovoked act of aggression. Europe showed its reluctance to engage with Russian representatives in diplomatic forums, projecting it as an irredeemable aggressor.  The US and Russia met in Riyadh to discuss “the framework for peace agreement and an initial ceasefire” without Ukraine’s representatives. Ukraine wants its participation and European partners’ involvement in the peace process. 

The Jeddah meeting between the US and Ukraine on March 11 took important steps towards restoring durable peace for Ukraine. According to the Joint Statement issued by the State Department, Ukraine expressed “readiness to accept the US proposal to enact an immediate interim 30-day ceasefire.”  The US lifted the pause on intelligence sharing and resumed security assistance to Ukraine. Former US Deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz (2001-5) writes that President Trump has two choices for ending the war.  One is the Chamberlain approach of 1938 “when the Czech Prime Minister was forced to cede his country’s territory in exchange for empty German promises.” The other is Eisenhower's pattern of 1953, “where a credible threat of force was followed by a strong posture.” Negotiating with Russia without Ukraine, writes Wolfowitz, follows the disturbing Chamberlain pattern. 

China’s rise changed the geopolitics of the 20th and 21st centuries. Because Russia was isolated from the international mainstream after its disintegration in 1991, it turned to military means to assert its power and interests. It moved closer to China and signed a friendship agreement without limits on February 4, 2022.   Moscow invaded Ukraine on February 24.  Ukraine, with support from the West, particularly the USA, has been fighting with Russia, the world’s largest nuclear power. The Trump administration considers that continuing war has no purpose and that diplomatic compromise is necessary. It thinks that prolonging war will only deepen Russia’s relations with China with no benefits to the West. Washington thinks wooing Russia to its side is to keep the Kremlin away from its alliance with China and other adversaries.  

Unity 

After the war began, there was a phase when the conflict in Ukraine was said to have united Europe, closely aligning it with the USA at the forefront.  Now, however, discussions to stop the ongoing war seem to have fractured the alliance forged after World War II and post the 1989 unity.  Bloomberg writes. “The bottom line is that Europe still needs the US and knows it, but Trump’s America no longer sees a need for Europe.” Bridge-building is important to avoid the risk of division. The Transatlantic alliance, which provided stability and helped countries in Europe achieve prosperity, remains relevant in confronting shared challenges. 

Many invoke the return of Thucydides’ hard-headed realism, “the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must.” These are troubling times for small and weak nations.  Seated between two huge and rising neighbours - India and China - Nepal is at the crossroads of their competing and conflicting interests, further complicated by the increasing involvement of Western powers.  Navigating such a complex geopolitical landscape is a formidable challenge. Nepal can do so effectively only by strengthening its domestic foundation that gives strength, instills confidence and enables bold decision-making in the nation’s best interest. 

(Bhattarai, Ph. D., is a faculty member of the Institute of Crisis Management Studies (ICMS), Tribhuvan University. dineshbhattarai@tuicms.edu.np)