The Trump administration has boasted a commitment to ending the war in Ukraine by directly negotiating a peace deal with Vladimir Putin.
But what should come as relief to an embattled nation, devastated by three years of attritional warfare, has sent shockwaves through Kyiv and allies in NATO alike.
Donald Trump unsettled partners in Europe by appearing to concede all of Putin’s major demands before negotiations had even begun, as his team retracted support for an 80-year commitment to ensuring the freedom of sovereign nations.
The tone has seen allegations of ‘appeasement’ levied by allies with living memory of the dangerous precedent set by concessions to the murderous Nazi regime in the 1930s. Trump’s demands of Ukraine have been compared to the Treaty of Versailles.
The comments have also prompted European allies to question how much they can rely on America’s nuclear deterrent as a guarantor of independence, and revived conversation around the need to increase military spending.
European officials now believe that Trump could withdraw U.S. troops from the Baltics as part of the negotiations around Ukraine, leaving the continent vulnerable to a Russian attack.
Amid warnings from European intelligence bureaus that Putin is, indeed, developing capabilities for a direct attack, experts warn that the alliance will have to relearn old military reflexes, with Britain charged with taking point.
A British soldier reloads his firearm on February 17, 2025 in Smardan, Romania
Heavily damaged buildings in Chasiv Yar, Donetsk region, shared January 29, 2025
British Army soldiers from Badger Squadron, The Royal Tank Regiment part of the 12th Armoured Brigade Combat Team ride Challenger 2 tanks during Exercise Immediate Response as one component of NATO’s Exercise Steadfast Defender 2024, in Poland May 15, 2024
A soldier of the United Kingdom’s 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian infantry unit storms an enemy position in a simulated attack during the NATO ‘Brilliant Jump’ military exercises on February 26, 2024 in Drawsko Pomorskie, Poland
Russian and American officials met today in Saudi Arabia to discuss peace terms for Ukraine
Latvia‘s intelligence agency, the Constitution Protection Bureau (SAB), released a shocking report on Monday, claiming that ‘Russian intelligence and security services are currently developing their capabilities to organize sabotage in Europe’ in preparation ‘for a possible military confrontation with NATO in the long term’.
Should a peace deal play out to ‘freeze’ the conflict in Ukraine along existing battle lines, Moscow ‘would be able to increase its military presence next to NATO’s north-eastern flank, including the Baltics within the next five years’, the report claims.
‘This scenario would significantly increase Russia‘s military threat to NATO,’ the SAB assesses.
Denmark last year came to a similar conclusion, that Russia could attack a NATO country within three to five years and ‘test’ the bloc’s Article 5 commitment of mutual defence.
Dr Kenton White, politics and international relations expert at the University of Reading, told MailOnline that NATO is right to be concerned about the Russian threat.
‘Russia has a long history of learning from military failures,’ he said. ‘NATO should not underestimate that ability.
‘Should Russia ever attack a NATO nation, the response from European members would be speedy, but given the poor record of defence spending it would be months, if not years, before a serious response could be mounted.
‘Depending on the US administration, support would be equivocal at best, non-existent at worst.
‘The ultimate question regarding deterrence is, would the US administration be willing to sacrifice American lives in a European conflict? Recent events would suggest not.’
French President Emmanuel Macron (L) welcomes Keir Starmer (R) ahead of the extraordinary security summit on Ukraine at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France on February 17, 2025
A British soldier aims his rifle on February 17, 2025 in Smardan, Romania during NATO drills
Bulgarian and Spanish special military forces participate in the NATO exercise Steadfast Dart in the village of Tsruncha on February 13, 2025
A Swedish artillery team fires a projectile from an Archer self-propelled Howitzer during the NATO ‘Exercise Lightning Strike’ on November 20, 2024
Should a peace deal play out to ‘freeze’ the conflict in Ukraine along existing battle lines, Moscow ‘would be able to increase its military presence next to NATO’s north-eastern flank, including the Baltics within the next five years’, the SAB report claims
The unsettling admission comes at a time of grave uncertainty over the United States’ commitment to Europe’s security.
A conciliatory deal that fails to punish Russia for invading a sovereign nation threatens to undo a longstanding commitment from the U.S. to upholding self-determination around the world.
Military insiders told MailOnline this could signal to the likes of China that they, too, are entitled to seize foreign territory if they can brace through the theatre of temporary sanctions.
The Trump administration’s tone has unnerved allies on the continent, who have accused the United States of ‘appeasement’ and called into question whether they will be able to rely on America’s support if Putin makes designs on the Baltic states.
The concern is not unfounded. Donald Trump worried allies in 2017 when he refused to explicitly endorse the mutual defence doctrine of Article 5, which holds that an attack on one nation is considered an attack on all, requiring a collective response.
He later reaffirmed the longstanding commitment to coming to the defence of allies. But recent comments have cast that commitment back into doubt.
At a rally in South Carolina last year, Trump said he would ‘encourage’ Russia to attack any NATO member that fails to pay their bills as part of the military alliance.
He said that the leader of a NATO ally had asked outright whether the US would come to his country’s aid in the event of an attack from Moscow.
‘I said: “You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?…No I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage them to do whatever they want. You gotta pay.”‘
Then last week, Trump suggested Ukraine ‘may be Russian someday’ in concerning comments during an interview with Fox News.
Trump’s Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, later insisted that the United States was no longer ‘primarily focused’ on Europe, and said that the old continent would have to fund most of Ukraine’s defense itself.
He said that the U.S. would not remain on the continent ‘forever’, igniting concern that the administration could withdraw some 90,000 troops stationed in Europe.
Polish President Andrzej Duda insisted today Poland had been ‘assured’ that there was ‘absolutely no American intention to reduce activity here in our part of Europe’.
Burned cars in a parking lot near damaged residential buildings after a Russian drone attack on February 10, 2025 in Sumy
Ukrainian soldiers of the 505th marines battalion receive training in trench digging, medical care and drone operations as the war between Russia and Ukraine continue in Kurakhove, Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine on January 16, 2025
Philip Ingram MBE, retired British Army colonel and military intelligence specialist, told MailOnline that the comments had succeeded in waking Europe up to the need to invest in their own security.
The message, he said, was: ‘Europe, stand up and start to take this seriously and recognise that this is not a U.S. national priority.’
Mr Ingram noted it was Sir Keir Starmer who urged that any Ukraine peace deal would require a US ‘backstop’ to deter Russia from attacking its neighbour again, drawing a red line by which the U.S. would be committed to stepping in.
This, Mr Ingram said, would likely cover ‘as a minimum requirement U.S. support for those capabilities that European nations and other contributing nations can’t provide, primarily in air support with some logistics movement… and support with intelligence’.
‘That’s why the UK is being seen, or Starmer is being seen, as a leader, I think. Donald Trump’s team has turned around to Starmer and said, “You are going to lead this. So step up and do it,” he suggested.
He noted it was also British Defence Secretary John Healey who chaired the 26th Ukraine Defence Contract Group last week in a first for any European nation.
Mr Ingram suggested Britain could take a lead role in Europe’s future security arrangements as ‘France and Germany are political basket cases at the moment’ and the UK has vast experience leading military planning operations.
A Eurocopter Tiger attack helicopter of the Bundeswehr participates in the Quadriga military exercises involving German, French, Lithuanian and Dutch troops during a Distinguished Visitors’ Day on May 29, 2024
Neighbours walk past a damaged building after a Russian shelling in the Ukrainian city of Kostiantynivka on February 10, 2025
Ukrainians ride a tank in the Kharkiv region, eastern Ukraine, 10 February 2025, amid the ongoing Russian invasion
The situation remains delicate, however, with plans evolving in real time. A pressing challenge is that NATO allies remain in a ‘woeful position’ militarily.
‘In the next two to five years we are wholly reliant on our American backstop. Have we got the ability to do this? No. Not in the slightest,’ Mr Ingram assessed.
‘It’s similar things across Europe. The French are in a slightly better position. The Germans are in an appalling position. European nations have got what seems to be a lot of good stuff on paper, but it’s purely on paper.’
NATO’s military budget for 2025, which provides funds for various integrated structures, is 2.37bn euro (£1.97bn). Partners are also expected to spend two per cent of GDP on defence to ensure readiness and contribute towards research and development.
Twenty three of the 32 members meet this target. Britain exceeded it with 2.33 per cent. But only two spent more as a share of GDP on their military than the U.S. – Poland and Estonia.
Across the board, NATO spent $1.28 trillion on defense in 2023. Of that, the U.S. contributed $880bn, or 68.75 per cent.
Trump has urged allies to boost spending to five per cent of GDP. It is a commitment most will not be able to make, which could serve as justification for the U.S. leaving the alliance.
‘Years of defence cuts across NATO nations, including Britain, have steadily eroded military capabilities while governments have consistently fallen short of their stated defence spending commitments,’ Dr White said.
‘The current debate around deploying forces to Ukraine has starkly exposed these long-term readiness challenges and capacity shortfalls.’
Donald Trump, left, shakes hands with Vladimir Putin, Russia’s President, during a news conference in Helsinki, Finland, on Monday, July 16, 2018
Ukrainian serviceman of the Azov Brigade take part in a military training exercise in the eastern Donetsk region, on February 3, 2025
Tankers from the 33rd separate mechanized brigade of the Ukrainian Ground Forces fire with a Leopard 2A4 tank during a field training at an undisclosed location in Ukraine on October 27, 2024
Beyond conventional weapons, though, the U.S. has also historically provided a valuable nuclear deterrent shielding Europe from foreign threats.
Without America, NATO maintains its operationally independent nuclear capability through Britain and France. Britain has ringfenced its Trident investment despite cutting elsewhere.
But for some time, European leaders – especially France’s Emmanuel Macron – have urged that Europe must prepare for a future without the U.S.
Macron last year framed the shift as an opportunity for Europe to break away from the post-war order, in which ‘all the treaties were decided by the former USSR and USA’.
‘Everything that covered our territory was decided by the big guys in the room, not by the Europeans themselves,’ he said.
Going forward, he told an audience in Stockholm, ‘we have to be the one to decide’.
Edward Lucas, a security expert and politician, wrote late last year that while Russia’s presence would be ‘heavily depleted’ after the war, it is ‘now capable of reconstituting its forces quickly’.
A limited response from NATO to an attack in the Baltic region, for instance, ‘would be the end of’ the alliance, calling its credibility into question.
‘Even a small, symbolic Russian raid on NATO territory that goes unpunished marks the end of the collective security guarantee. That will be the ultimate triumph for Putin.’
Mr Ingram warned that, despite historic underspending, Putin is unlikely to be ‘stupid enough’ to attack Europe ‘in the next couple of years’.
But he will be ‘refurbishing, rearming, learning the lessons from Ukraine.’
‘He will come back and have a better capability with proper lessons learned, properly adapted for modern warfare and therefore able to threaten the likes of the Baltics very quickly indeed, and he will do that in conjunction with Iran, North Korea and China.’
The challenge set by the U.S. will be for Europe to show willing to pledge more towards defence, even if five per cent is currently untenable.
‘I think the U.S. is mature enough that they would still, if required, invoke Article 5,’ he surmised.
No matter what the Americans are saying, I think if push came to shove, they would live up to common support.’
Ukrainian forces firing a 120mm mortar towards Russian positions at an undisclosed location near Chasiv Yar in the Donetsk region, on February 8
Volodymyr Zelenskyy speaks during the briefing with President of the European Investment Bank Nadia Calvino in Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, Feb. 10, 2025
In the wake of the Trump administration’s recent comments, European leaders gathered in Paris on Monday to agree a unified strategy against the backdrop of waning American support.
The summit explored the possible shape of European involvement in Ukraine’s future, including peacekeeping commitments. Sir Keir Starmer said that Europe was facing a ‘once-in-a-generation moment’ for its collective security, and must work closely with the United States.
In the view of Dr White, the uncertainty plays into Putin’s hands.
‘President Putin has achieved one of his main goals which is to weaken the unity of NATO,’ he said.
‘The US and Hungary are clear examples of this, and the lack of a unified outcome to the Paris meeting only reinforces this impression.’
Dr Neil Melvin, Director of International Security at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), warned that Starmer‘s government faces a ‘pivotal moment’ as Trump sidelines Europe, reiterating the ‘pressing need for a clear security commitment to Kyiv‘.
‘At this moment of acute anxiety, there is a real risk that Europe will attempt to fill the security void with rash and ill-thought through proposals.’ he said.
Sending a delegation of peacekeepers to uphold security in Ukraine ‘would be a mistake’, he warned. Unable to commit a major force, the European troops would ‘have to be considered primarily as a “tripwire force”‘.
‘In the best-case scenario, it would lead to severe overstretch of European forces and an over-focus of resources on one sub-regional theatre.
‘In the worst case, it would allow Russia to pull Europe into fighting far from its core logistical bases, at a time when European forces are desperately short of mass and when they would be lacking backup from US forces and their key enablers which are essential for joint warfighting.’
Instead, he suggested, Europe should ‘double down on the commitments’ already made to Ukraine, providing training and weapons, as well as sharing intelligence and promoting interoperability.
This kind of commitment, he said, would give European diplomacy a role in peace negotiations with Russia.
A strong stance from Europe that draws red lines while prioritising diplomacy may be key to upholding the world order.
A dangerous precedent in Ukraine could give Chinese premier Xi Jinping the impression he can take Taiwan ‘and all that he has to do is suffer the wrath of the international community for three years before he’d be allowed to come back into the fold again,’ Mr Ingram added.
President Donald Trump meets with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at Trump Tower, Sept. 27, 2024, in New York
A traditional Russian wooden doll Matryoshka depicting Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump is displayed for sale at a souvenir shop on the Nevsky Prospect avenue in St. Petersburg, Russia, 11 February 2025
Donald Trump’s stance on Ukraine and the future of European security has sent shockwaves through NATO.
Critics have suggested the move represents a watershed moment, the U.S. turning away from a long held foreign policy to protect democracy and sovereignty, and back to a colonial division of the world into spheres of influence decided by great powers without their involvement.
Others say Europe has rightly been woken up to the pressing need to secure its future with a commitment to its own defence, independent of allies whose priorities may shift elsewhere.
What a future security arrangement with the United States may look like remains to be seen, and will likely evolve in line with contemporary events.
Either way, Europe will have to prepare for the worst case scenario, ensuring readiness to face down an imminent Russian threat without the guarantee of support from the U.S.
