Geopolitical Report ISSN 2785-2598 Volume 51 Issue 12
Author: Matteo Meloni
Executive Summary
This report examines the shifting dynamics of U.S. foreign policy towards Ukraine and NATO, particularly considering Donald Trump’s return to the White House. It analyses how the current U.S. Administration, characterised by reduced overseas commitments, fiscal conservatism, and scepticism towards allied burden-sharing, could reshape transatlantic security.
The report emphasises how reduced U.S. backing for Ukraine strategically affects NATO unity, Europe’s independent defence, and Ukraine’s war effort against Russia. The analysis also covers Trump’s recent statements criticising Biden’s handling of the war, questioning Ukraine’s leadership, and portraying himself as the only leader who could broker peace.
With shifting global politics, the report highlights the need for Europe to prepare for reduced U.S. involvement, requiring greater defence spending, diplomatic collaboration, and independent action to ensure regional stability.
Background Information
The election of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States marked a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy towards Ukraine and in its approach to NATO alliances. This change profoundly affected relations between Washington and Kyiv, altering the course of geopolitical events.
Under President Joe Biden’s administration, Russia launched a military operation in Ukraine in 2022, occupying vast territories of the Eastern European nation, beginning with the Donbas region. This escalation followed the collapse of the Minsk Agreements and occurred amidst an identity crisis within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
During Trump’s first term (2016–2020), transatlantic relations faced considerable strain. President Trump repeatedly criticised NATO allies for insufficient defence spending, while French President Emmanuel Macron notably described the alliance as “brain-dead”, reflecting widespread concerns about NATO’s relevance and cohesion at the time.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, however, has reinvigorated NATO, providing the alliance with renewed purpose and strategic direction. The United States, under the Biden administration, has leveraged this conflict as a tool of foreign policy. In coordination with NATO members and Western-aligned nations such as Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, Washington has spearheaded the imposition of stringent sanctions against Russia, aiming to undermine Moscow’s military and economic capabilities.
President Donald Trump’s recent statement regarding the conflict in Ukraine presents a sharp critique of the Biden administration’s handling of the war and Ukraine’s leadership, while positioning himself as the key figure capable of achieving peace.
Trump’s stance aligns with his America First doctrine, which prioritises fiscal restraint, a reduced commitment to foreign engagements, and a critical approach to allied burden-sharing. His statements highlight a perceived imbalance in financial contributions to the Ukraine conflict, arguing that the United States has provided significantly more aid than European nations. This view supports his long-held belief that European allies must take on more responsibility for regional security and lessen their reliance on the United States.
He criticises Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, calling him unqualified and accusing him of needlessly involving the U.S. in a costly war. Concerns over financial transparency are also raised, with claims that a substantial portion of U.S. aid to Ukraine remains unaccounted for. Furthermore, he raises concerns about Ukraine’s internal political procedures, arguing that suspending elections is undemocratic and undermining Zelenskyy’s legitimacy. These claims fit into a larger effort to examine how the U.S. supports ineffective or poorly run foreign governments.
A central theme of Trump’s position is his self-proclaimed ability to broker peace, contrasting his approach with what he describes as inaction by the Biden administration and European governments. By positioning himself as the only leader capable of negotiating an end to the conflict, he seeks to reinforce his diplomatic credentials as a key electoral asset.
While acknowledging the humanitarian toll of the war in Ukraine, Trump’s remarks largely focus on attributing responsibility for the crisis to its current leadership. His foreign policy statements signal a strategic move toward less involvement in lengthy conflicts, decreased foreign aid, and a refocusing of international commitments to better serve U.S. interests. His critique of both Zelensky and Biden reflects a political strategy aimed at appealing to an electorate increasingly wary of foreign interventions and prioritising domestic concerns.
Risk Assessment
Trump’s position signals a recalibration of U.S. engagement in Ukraine, focusing on limiting financial aid, encouraging direct negotiations with Russia, and reducing Washington’s leadership role in European security affairs.
For NATO, this approach revives concerns about alliance cohesion and long-term stability. U.S. President’s insistence on burden-sharing and scepticism about NATO’s effectiveness challenges the alliance’s foundational principle of collective defence. While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has temporarily revitalised NATO’s strategic unity, the prospect of diminished U.S. involvement could expose underlying fractures.
European members may need to accelerate defence spending to prevent weakening deterrence capabilities. Without strong U.S. backing, NATO could face strategic uncertainty, particularly on its eastern flank, where member states rely heavily on the United States’ military presence.
Ukraine’s position becomes increasingly precarious under this developing policy landscape. A reduction in U.S. support—financial, military, or diplomatic—would force Kyiv to reassess its defence strategies and seek deeper partnerships with European allies. While Europe has stepped up aid, matching the scale and speed of Washington’s assistance remains challenging.
Conclusion
Should the Republican White House effectively adopt a harsher approach, Ukraine’s ability to sustain its defence efforts against the Russian presence could be compromised, especially if international attention diminishes or a direct agreement between Russia and the United States that sidelines Kyiv and Brussels is finalised.
Europe, in turn, must prepare for greater self-reliance in ensuring regional security. Trump’s push for European nations to shoulder a larger share of the burden underscores a longstanding transatlantic debate. With the potential retraction of U.S. leadership, the European Union and NATO members may need to intensify defence initiatives and enhance diplomatic coordination.
Beyond military considerations, Europe faces significant economic and political repercussions from prolonged instability in Ukraine, including energy security concerns and the management of refugee flows. In this shifting geopolitical context, maintaining unity within NATO and securing continued support for Ukraine will require decisive European leadership. The developing U.S. stance underscores the importance of Europe not only as a partner but as an independent actor capable of safeguarding its own strategic interests amid changing global dynamics.
*Cover Picture: Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump (Credits: President.gov.ua, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons)
Do not miss our special reports for the third anniversary of the Ukraine conflict and contact us at info@specialeurasia.com and request information about our tailored reports and consulting services.
