For a moment, it seemed that Russia’s hubris had given Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky some much-needed breathing room exactly a week after his disastrous face-to-face meeting with US President Donald Trump at the White House. A relentless missile barrage on Thursday and Friday, aimed at crippling Ukraine’s critical infrastructure, had prompted Trump to reconsider large-scale US sanctions on Moscow.
According to Ukrainian authorities, Russia launched 67 missiles and 194 drones at power and gas facilities across the country just days after the Trump administration announced a pause on military aid and intelligence support to Ukraine. Reports also indicated that prior to the strikes the White House had been considering offering Russia potential sanctions relief as part of a broader effort to end the war and strengthen diplomatic and economic ties with Moscow.
"Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely 'pounding' Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large-scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED," the US president posted on social media following the massive assault. "To Russia and Ukraine, get to the table right now, before it is too late. Thank you!!!"
With this offensive, it appeared Russia had overplayed its hand, trying to capitalise on the favourable momentum it had enjoyed since Trump took office.
Over the past month, Trump and his administration had repeatedly made concessions to Moscow on key aspects pertaining to the war in Ukraine.
On February 12, Trump stated that Ukraine would not regain all its lost territory or join NATO, endorsing two of Russia’s core demands, as he broke ranks with Western leaders by announcing intentions to meet with Vladimir Putin. A day later, he further distanced himself from the G7 by suggesting that his Russian counterpart should be allowed to rejoin the group — Russia had been expelled in 2014 after its annexed Crimea.
On February 18, Trump went as far as blaming Ukraine for starting the war with Russia. Two days later, US officials opposed including a reference to "Russian aggression" in a G7 statement marking the third anniversary of the war. Four days after that, the United States joined Russia, North Korea, and Iran in voting against a UN General Assembly resolution drafted by European and Ukrainian diplomats because it explicitly named Russia as the aggressor.
Then came February 28 and the televised White House meeting between Trump, his Vice President JD Vance and Ukraine’s Zelensky. Although it began as cordially as it could given the lead up, tensions flared as soon as the conversation turned to Russia and diplomacy.
“If I didn’t align myself with both of them, you’d never have a deal… I’m aligned with the United States of America, and for the good of the world, I’m aligned with the world,” Trump said in response to a reporter’s question about European concerns that he was ‘aligned too much with Putin’. “The path to peace… is maybe engaging in diplomacy. That’s what President Trump is doing,” Vance interjected.
Zelensky, who accused Putin of repeatedly violating previous ceasefires, shot back, “What kind of diplomacy, JD, are you speaking about?”
Vance, visibly irritated, responded sharply: “Do you think it’s respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country? Have you said thank you once?”
Meanwhile, Trump bluntly told Zelensky, “You’re not winning this.”
In the fallout, the Ukrainian leader attempted to strike a conciliatory tone. In a series of social media posts the following morning, Zelensky urged the US to "stand more firmly" on Ukraine’s side while emphasising the need for both countries to be "honest and direct with each other" to better understand their shared goals. Stopping short of an outright apology, Zelensky also appeared on Fox News, where he thanked both the American people and President Trump.
That, however, did not stop Trump from suspending military aid to Ukraine just three days after the confrontation, including more than $1 billion in arms and ammunition already ordered.
Until Russia’s missile assault, it had seemed Trump’s ties with Zelensky were done and dusted. However, the US president’s strong social media response and his threat of new sanctions on Moscow briefly suggested a potential opening for the Ukrainian leader.
Seizing the moment, Zelensky too called for more sanctions on Russia. “Such strikes show that Russia’s goals are unchanged. Therefore, it is very important to continue doing everything to protect life, strengthen our air defence, and increase sanctions against Russia,” he wrote on Telegram on Saturday.
But almost as soon as he had created that opening, Trump closed it again for Zelensky.
Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, the US president said he found it “easier” to work with Russia than Ukraine and claimed that Putin “wants to end the war.”
“I’m finding it more difficult, frankly, to deal with Ukraine. And they don’t have the cards,” Trump said. “In terms of getting a final settlement, it may be easier dealing with Russia.”
When asked whether Putin was taking advantage of the pause in US intelligence sharing and military aid to Ukraine, Trump replied, “I actually think he is doing what anybody else would do.”
Whether Trump offers Putin the carrot or the stick, as far as he’s concerned, the writing may be on the wall for Zelensky. According to reports this week, four senior members of the US president’s entourage have held secret discussions with some of Zelensky’s top political opponents in Kyiv, raising speculation that Washington may be exploring ways to push the Ukrainian leader out. Trump had previously accused Zelensky of being a “dictator without elections” and ominously suggested that he “would not be around very long” if he refused to strike a deal with Russia.
For now, Zelensky and Ukraine will rely on their remaining allies in the West, many of whom quickly rallied behind him after his confrontation with Trump and Vance at the White House. However, there were notable exceptions – Italy’s Giorgia Meloni signalled her desire to maintain strong ties with the Trump administration, while Hungary’s Viktor Orbán openly praised Trump for “standing bravely for peace.”
The Sunday after his tense White House meeting, Zelensky flew to London, where European leaders outlined a four-point plan for peace which included the continuation of military aid to Ukraine, a commitment for Ukraine to be present at peace talks, boosting Ukraine's defence capabilities, and developing a "coalition of the willing" to defend Ukraine, including sending troops to Ukraine.
Following the suspension of American aid to Ukraine, European Union leaders convened for an emergency summit in Brussels to discuss both the London Summit peace plan and broader European security concerns regarding Russia. With US support in question, European leaders are now weighing their next steps — both in sustaining Ukraine’s war effort and in reinforcing their own defences against potential Russian aggression.
In the short term, Ukraine’s European partners may be able to plug the gap left by Trump’s decision to suspend military aid. Thanks to growing domestic and European defence production, Ukraine is now less dependent on US aid than in previous months and years.
However, the United States remains Ukraine’s largest military donor, having delivered or allocated over €64 billion ($67 billion) since January 2022, according to data from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. In comparison, Europe’s military aid stands at just under €62 billion.
While the immediate halt in US aid won’t lead to shortages overnight, Ukraine’s armed forces will be forced to ration munitions and gradually retreat from exposed positions during the spring. In the medium to long term, the situation will become increasingly dire for both frontline troops and civilians.
More concerning, some critical military capabilities can only be supplied by the US or with US approval. Kyiv may now struggle to replace sophisticated air defence systems essential for repelling Russian missile barrages, as well as precision weapons like the HIMARS missile system, one of Ukraine’s primary strike platforms.
According to Ukraine’s Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, the US Patriot system is Ukraine’s only defence against Russian ballistic missiles — raising urgent concerns about Kyiv’s ability to withstand continued Russian attacks.
While at least 20 countries, mostly from Europe and the Commonwealth, have expressed interest in joining the “coalition of the willing” proposed by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer in London, Russia has firmly rejected the idea of European peacekeepers in Ukraine, warning that such a move would amount to direct NATO involvement in the war.
Beyond drawing Russia’s ire, the proposal also raises serious questions about Europe’s own defence capabilities and its readiness to sustain a prolonged military commitment in Ukraine.
Last month, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the UK’s Chief of the Defence Staff, warned that Britain lags behind its European allies in war preparedness and suffers from weaker national resilience. Writing for The Independent, defence expert Francis Tusa exposed how "malign neglect" has left much of the British Army’s tanks and artillery unfit for operational use.
“The Challenger 2 fleet… has a notional strength of 213 tanks, after 14 were donated to Ukraine. However, these have been at the receiving end of ‘malign neglect’… The result? The Royal Armoured Corps has not been able to deploy a realistic Challenger 2 regiment of 59 tanks for many years,” Tusa wrote. “The Royal Artillery used to have a force of over 100 self-propelled AS90 artillery pieces. But much like the Challenger 2 fleet, this had been left to rot, with only a handful available even for training.”
“When Denmark and Sweden have more credible tank forces than the United Kingdom, you know there’s an issue. And, as the Ukraine war has shown, tanks do have a major role, especially if a peacekeeping force were to be a credible deterrent,” Tusa concluded.
Earlier this year, General Sir Patrick Sanders, head of the British Army, argued that the UK needed a citizen army of tens of thousands of troops to prepare for a potential future conflict with Russia, warning that current forces — reserves included — would not be large enough to defend the country in a war.
Like the UK, Germany's army is less prepared today than when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, according to military officials, lawmakers, and defence experts cited by Reuters. Even with increased defence spending, the Bundeswehr remains hamstrung by shortages in air defence, artillery, and soldiers.
"Before Russia's invasion, we had eight brigades at around 65% readiness. After sending weapons, ammunition, and equipment to Ukraine, as well as intensifying our own drills, Germany’s land forces are now down to just 50% readiness,” revealed Colonel André Wüstner, head of the German Armed Forces Association
A new report by the European Court of Auditors highlights that EU armed forces still struggle to move quickly across borders due to bureaucratic and logistical obstacles. The latest Union Action Plan on Military Mobility found "mixed progress", concluding that: “The goal of moving military staff, equipment, and supplies swiftly and seamlessly within and beyond the EU—at short notice and on a large scale—has not yet been achieved.”
Meanwhile, NATO forces remain unprepared for modern drone warfare, according to Colonel Vadym Sukharevskyi, head of Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces. In an interview with Reuters, he warned: "Not a single NATO army is ready to resist the cascade of drones."
Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, drone warfare has expanded dramatically. Russian attacks, often involving hundreds of drones, have become routine, exposing the lack of NATO’s preparedness to counter large-scale drone swarms.
With European defence readiness under question, leaders must now balance continued support for Ukraine with strengthening their own military capabilities in an increasingly uncertain security landscape. Although one of the primary outcomes of the summit in Brussels has been a renewed commitment from European leaders to boost defence budgets, it could take a decade or more before these efforts translate into tangible military improvements.
In particular, Europe’s defence industry will take time to scale up, keeping the continent reliant on imports for most of its military needs in the short term. "That initial phase is expected to last about five years, with at least another five years needed to achieve self-sufficiency," CNN quoted Frank Gill, a sovereign credit analyst at S&P Global Ratings, as saying.
"We should have woken up earlier," France’s President Emmanuel Macron told participants at last Sunday’s London Summit, reiterating his long-standing call for greater European military spending. "I’ve been saying for years that we need a more sovereign, more united, more independent Europe."
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen echoed his sentiment: "We need a massive surge in defence, without any question. We want lasting peace, but lasting peace can only be built on strength."
Quoting Elsa Bernard, a public law expert at the University of Lille, France 24 noted: "This new situation is accelerating the development of European defence because it simply seems impossible to do otherwise."
"Today, Europeans understand that Europe can no longer depend on the United States for its security," Bernard emphasised. “The European Union must be able to ensure its own defence and must therefore strive for strategic autonomy."
However, despite growing calls for greater independence, Europe remains heavily reliant on US support. Tens of thousands of American troops are stationed across the continent, and the US continues to provide vital military capabilities, including technical training and nuclear deterrence. Moreover, most European militaries depend on the US for their most advanced assets, such as the F-35 stealth fighter jets, highlighting the challenges of achieving full strategic autonomy.
Writing for Foreign Policy, former US ambassador to Egypt and Israel, Daniel C. Kurtzer, outlined three objectives Trump has in Ukraine, all tied to his idea of "winning."
"The first is to end the fighting and be able to claim that he ended the war, even though he surely knows that cease-fires without ironclad security provisions are made to be broken," he wrote. "Second, Trump seeks to shackle the Europeans with the responsibility for keeping and paying for the peace, without any serious commitment from the United States."
The third objective, the ex-diplomat added, is to normalise US relations with Putin, whom Trump "admires and respects as a fellow strongman."
According to Kurtzer, Trump has no ‘anchored conception’ of America’s national interests. “Most of what he says and does is subordinated and tethered to his vanities, designed to buck up his image, boost his political and financial interests, or cultivate his pet projects, peeves, and festering grievances. With Trump, everything is personal,” he wrote.
“It’s been clear for years that Trump can’t stand Zelensky and has nothing but contempt, derision, and bad associations about Ukraine from his first impeachment.”
That contempt flavoured Trump’s exchange with Zelensky at the White House, which, in turn, dealt a significant blow to US diplomacy, according to experts. Washington’s credibility as a reliable ally has suffered at a time when its partners in Europe and Asia were already questioning its dependability.
While Europe, Ukraine, and even the US itself may suffer the consequences of Trump’s alienation of allies, the shift has created an opening for China to present itself as a more reliable global power. Speaking to NPR, former US ambassador Winston Lord suggested that China is thrilled by Trump’s actions.
“China and North Korea are delighted at what's going on. If he can sell out Ukraine, he could easily sell out Taiwan,” said Lord, who has worked closely with Henry Kissinger and is the only surviving American witness of the 1972 Nixon-Mao Zedong meeting.
He argued that Trump’s actions have inflicted greater damage on America’s global standing in one month than decades of missteps in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. “It’s reversing decades of bipartisan foreign policy. This will lead to a terribly diminished American role in the world,” the former envoy warned.
According to Lord, US allies in Asia in particular are watching with ‘astonishment’ as Trump reshapes foreign policy. “If this trend continues, no one can depend on the United States under Trump to come to their defence. There could be a real drift toward accommodating China, simply because America is no longer a reliable deterrent,” he predicted.
Beijing has already begun seizing opportunities to strengthen ties with Europe. Last month, at the Munich Security Conference, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi held a series of meetings with European leaders, making a direct appeal in his speech: “China has always seen in Europe an important pole in the multipolar world… China is willing to work with the European side to deepen strategic communication and mutually beneficial cooperation.”
In an article by Foreign Policy, Xuewu Gu, chair in international relations at the University of Bonn, noted: “The rise of US-EU friction offers Beijing a fantastic opportunity to reconcile with the EU and many European countries that have resented China’s Russia policy.”
While Trump has sought to negotiate an end to the war directly with Putin, effectively sidelining Ukraine, Wang Yi stressed China “supports Europe’s important role in the peace talks.” In an analysis for Chatham House, Asia-Pacific expert William Matthews advised Europe to ‘take the gamble’ and engage with China on Ukraine.
“As the Trump administration reaches out to Russia and suspends military aid to Ukraine, Europe’s leaders have run out of good options… European countries, including the UK, should actively counter this by engaging China in pursuit of a peace deal that gives Ukraine a seat at the table,” he wrote.
Some in Europe have already signalled a greater openness towards China. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who previously spearheaded the EU’s more assertive stance toward Beijing, told EU ambassadors in early February, “We will keep de-risking our economic relationship, as we have been doing in recent years. But there is also room to engage constructively with China and find solutions in our mutual interest.”
More recently, the European Parliament lifted restrictions on EU lawmakers meeting certain Chinese officials, signalling a shift in Brussels toward a more pragmatic approach in its engagement with Beijing. Speaking to Global Times, Zhao Junjie, a senior research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences' Institute of European Studies, suggested the move reflects a slight softening in the stance of some hawkish European figures toward China.
As Washington’s reliability is called into question under the weight of Trump's unpredictable foreign policy, China has a strategic opening to position itself as a more stable global partner. While Beijing’s overtures, despite Europe’s limited options, may not immediately or fully replace longstanding transatlantic alliances, they do underscore one thing – for this year and the next three at least, trust in American leadership is no longer a given.