Trump & Ukraine

Donald Trump, self-proclaimed dealmaker extraordinaire, has decided that the best way to end the Ukraine war is to have a cosy little chat with Vladimir Putin – without inviting Ukraine to the table. Because, of course, what better way to resolve a war than by ignoring the country being invaded? It’s like planning your neighbour’s house renovation with the burglar who just broke in.

Trump insists he can “end the war in 24 hours,” a bold claim that’s never been backed up with anything resembling a plan. This could be a deliberate strategy - an extreme opening position aimed at shifting the final outcome closer to his preference. It's called 'Extreme Anchoring'. Nixon’s 'madman theory' and Johnson’s Brexit hardline stance are past examples of similar tactics. He has made similar sweeping statements before, such as his claims that he could negotiate nuclear disarmament with North Korea or force Mexico to pay for a border wall - neither of which materialized in any meaningful way. Fresh off his latest meeting with Putin, he’s pushing for peace talks – without Zelensky. The logic seems to be that if you pretend Ukraine doesn’t exist, the problem will sort itself out. But Ukraine does exist, and Zelensky has made it abundantly clear that no deal happens without his cooperation. And that cooperation hinges on one thing – security guarantees.

Ukraine isn’t about to accept a ceasefire that lets Putin regroup before trying again. Any settlement will require firm Western commitments, particularly from the U.S., to deter future aggression. But here’s the problem: Trump is the very person making Europe doubt those commitments. His entire approach – if it can be called that – revolves around bullying NATO allies into spending more on defence. By threatening to abandon Ukraine, he appears to be betting that panic will push Europe into ramping up its own military budgets. It’s blackmail diplomacy, plain and simple.

If this is a tactic to get Europe to spend more on American technology, it risks spectacular failure - the law of unintended consequences. Instead of capitulating, European nations may accelerate military collaboration and joint defence projects, reinforcing their strategic autonomy in response to Trump’s unreliability. While the EU has long struggled to coordinate its defence efforts, recent initiatives like the European Defence Fund and NATO’s Defence Innovation Accelerator (DIANA) have started shifting momentum. Trump’s unpredictability could give Europe the final push to reduce reliance on U.S. arms – a trend that has already begun, though the path to full self-sufficiency remains uncertain. 

Trump’s entire political career is a parade of self-inflicted disasters, where every bold move ends up boomeranging back to hit him in the face due to unforeseen consequences. His trade war tanked U.S. farmers, forcing a $28 billion bailout. Tearing up the Iran nuclear deal let Tehran ramp up its nuclear programme. The family separation policy was such a PR catastrophe he had to reverse it in disgrace. His border wall shutdown lasted 35 days and got him zero new funding. And then there’s January 6th, where his attempt to cling to power got him impeached twice and buried in criminal charges. He charges ahead without foresight, then acts shocked when his own actions explode in his face. If he returns, expect more of the same – just with bigger wreckage.

It's worth noting that as a rough estimate, the UK boosting its defence spending to 3% of GDP could support an 80% increase in personnel, bringing the total to 253,000 - putting it at the forefront in Europe in personnel (it currently ranks 5th).  

European NATO members, including the UK and Canada, collectively spent approximately $485 billion on defence in 2024, up from $400 billion in 2022. About 32% of this goes toward equipment, much of it sourced from American manufacturers. While a shift away from U.S. suppliers wouldn’t cripple the entire American defence industry – which has other major buyers – it would erode Washington’s leverage over NATO. Losing Europe as a captive market would weaken U.S. influence at precisely the moment it needs it most.

However, breaking free from American military dependence isn’t as simple as writing bigger cheques. European nations currently allocate around 2.02% of GDP to defence, but experts suggest a minimum of 3% is needed for genuine self-sufficiency. For comparison, Russia spends roughly 6.3% – a sharp rise from 4.1% in 2021 – with lower production costs enabling it to churn out weapons at a fraction of Western prices. That advantage, however, is diminishing. While Russia has managed to sustain its war economy by reorienting trade towards China and India, sanctions and technological shortages are straining its ability to maintain long-term production. Western economic pressure may not have broken Moscow yet, but its ability to outlast Russia’s adaptations remains the key question.

Meanwhile, Europe has an underutilised industrial base that could be repurposed for military expansion. The struggling car industry could shift to armoured vehicle production, shipbuilding could pivot towards naval vessels, and civilian aerospace firms could ramp up drone and fighter jet manufacturing. While significant investment and coordination would be required, the infrastructure and expertise already exist. Political hesitations and supply chain constraints pose challenges, but a coordinated shift could ultimately strengthen Europe’s strategic position.

As all this unfolds, Putin watches with calculated optimism, knowing that any fractures in Western unity play to his advantage. The more discord Trump sows, the better for the Kremlin. A weak, divided response from Ukraine’s allies would allow Russia to push for a "peace deal" that cements its territorial gains and leaves Ukraine vulnerable. But make no mistake – that’s not peace. That’s surrender dressed up as diplomacy.

No real settlement can be reached without Ukraine’s direct involvement. History is littered with failed agreements that excluded key stakeholders – the Oslo Accords, the Paris Peace Accords – and any attempt to impose a deal over Ukraine’s head would end in the same way. If the West wants lasting peace, it must back Ukraine with security guarantees that actually deter future aggression. Whether that means NATO membership, bilateral defence agreements, or a long-term military presence, anything less simply hands Putin an easy win. And if Trump thinks selling out Ukraine will make America stronger, he’s in for a shock – because all he’ll have done is push Europe and Canada towards military self-reliance, leaving the U.S. out in the cold.