Implications of Trump's Unilateral and unprompted concessions to Russia. Part III: Threats facing Europe and how they should pursue their strategic objectives.

Trump’s Unilateral Concessions and Europe’s Strategic Crisis.

• Trump’s unilateral and unprompted concessions to Russia have sent shockwaves across Europe.

• Trump admin’s indirect admission that Europe will be left alone to secure Ukraine’s future, coupled with his insistence that NATO’s Article 5 will not apply to European peacekeepers in Ukraine, marks a seismic shift in transatlantic security.

• The implications are profound: this is not how a reliable superpower or NATO ally is expected to act.

• Yet, these cables have long argued that such a moment was inevitable.

• The assumption that Europe could indefinitely coast on U.S. protection (without pulling its own weight) was never sustainable.

• (side note: this of course doesn’t excuse the manner in which the U.S. is treating its NATO allies - undermining its own credibility and reliability above all else.)

The European Response: A Frantic Attempt to Regain Control.

• In the immediate aftermath of Trump’s remarks, European leaders scrambled to meet in Paris on Monday night.

• The goal: to develop a framework that ensures Europe retains leverage over Ukraine’s security and the broader European security order.

• The format of the meeting was revealing.

• Recognizing the need for efficiency, EU leaders deliberately excluded spoilers like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, opting for a core group of European states: France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Poland, and Denmark, alongside non-EU member UK.

• Yet, one glaring omission stands out: the Baltic states. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—perhaps the most resolute and clear-eyed actors on Russian threats—were left out.

• This was a strategic blunder.

• These states have not only demonstrated unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s defense but have also contributed more than 1% of their GDP in aid—four to five times the proportional support provided by the U.S.

• (side note: in addition, Estonia in particular seems to have excellent up-to-date intel on Russian moves.)

• Their absence meant a lost opportunity to set the right tone for the meeting.

• U.S.-Russia Negotiations Begin.

• Today, Russia and the U.S. commenced negotiations in Riyadh.

• This presents a grave risk for Europe and Ukraine: the possibility that Trump will push forward with additional unilateral concessions.

• The worst-case scenario is becoming increasingly likely—a temporary ceasefire designed to serve Trump’s political interests, allowing him to claim he secured “peace” and boosting his bid for a Nobel Prize.

• The problem? A ceasefire alone does not mean security.

• If Russia is not deterred from future aggression, if Ukraine remains vulnerable to renewed attack, and if Moscow is given the ability to politically dictate Kyiv’s future, then such a deal would be disastrous for Europe.

• From these essential facts, flow the rest of the strategic objectives for Europe.

• Strategic Imperatives for Europe:

• 1. Preventing Russian Political Control Over Ukraine.

• Ukraine must retain full sovereignty in determining its foreign policy course. Any settlement that allows Moscow de facto veto power over Kyiv’s EU or NATO accession is unacceptable.

• 2. Ensuring Ukraine’s Long-Term Security and Economic Viability.

• A stable, secure Ukraine requires robust air defense systems and Western security guarantees strong enough to reassure investors.

• Without this, Ukraine risks repelling foreign capital necessary for reconstruction and redevelopment.

• And with no prospect of sustainable economic growth and improvement in living standards in play, a catastrophic brain drain is also likely: with Ukraine’s young, educated workforce fleeing to Western Europe.

• Without investment, the country risks economic hollowing-out—deindustrialization and stagnation.

• And such a state will become a burden and not the benefit to Europe as a whole.

• 3. Restoring Deterrence Against Russia.

• Up until last week, deterrence was implicitly supported by U.S. security guarantees.

• That assumption is now dead.

• If Washington is unwilling to maintain the deterrent effect of its own presence, Europe must step up.

• The only credible alternative is for Europe to actively militarize Ukraine—arming it to the teeth, ensuring the rapid buildup of a European-led defense industrial base, and crucially, deploying European military personnel to act as a tripwire force inside Ukraine itself.

• The future of European security is being decided now.

• If Trump follows through on further unilateral concessions to Russia, Europe must move decisively. It cannot afford to be a passive observer in the security negotiations that shape its own fate.

• European leaders must ensure they are not sidelined in the evolving Russia-Ukraine talks.

• Instead, they must leverage their collective power to push for an agreement that secures Ukraine’s sovereignty, maintains deterrence against Moscow, and ultimately, protects the long-term stability of the continent.

Putin’s Strategic Objectives and Europe’s Necessary Countermeasures.

• Putin’s Three Core Goals Are:

• 1. Blocking Ukraine’s NATO and EU Accession.

• Putin’s primary aim is to ensure Ukraine remains a politically neutral buffer state.

• The Kremlin seeks to prevent Kyiv from integrating into Western political and security structures, maintaining it in a state of strategic limbo.

• 2. Demilitarization and Destabilization of Ukraine.

• Russia wants to prevent any substantial Western or European military presence in Ukraine.

• By keeping Ukraine in a perpetual state of insecurity—devoid of capital inflows, investments, and reconstruction—Russia seeks to hollow out Ukraine politically and economically, making it susceptible to future Russian influence and control. 3. Maintaining Escalation Dominance.

• By ensuring Ukraine lacks clear security guarantees, NATO membership prospects, or a credible deterrent force, Russia would preserve its ability to dictate the terms of engagement.

• Without a Western tripwire presence, Moscow can continue its strategy of incremental aggression, testing Western resolve while avoiding severe consequences.

• In addition to these core goals, Putin also maintains strong incentive to delay the conclusion of the talks until his war economy can cool off gradually (avoiding mass abrupt unemployment of young men).

• Moreover, just like Ukraine will need a security blanket to cover the territories that remain under its control, Putin will want similar guarantees for the currently occupied 20% of Ukraine under Russian control.

• (side note: without this security, his own oligarchs will be loath to invest into the reconstruction of the occupied territories for the fear of wasted capital.)

• Ideally, he will push for full recognition of the annexed territories as Russian - but this is a pipe dream.

• Saving that, a de facto understanding and commitment that Ukraine will not attempt to recapture and liberate the currently occupied territories will also be a demand pushed by the Kremlin.

Europe’s Counter-Strategy: Minimum Necessary Measures To deny Russia’s Objectives And Secure Its Own Strategic Position.

• Europe must act decisively on the following fronts:

• 1. Binding Ukraine and Europe into a United Negotiation Front.

• Europe must categorically refuse any Russia-Ukraine settlement that excludes Europe from negotiations.

• Trump could pressure Zelensky into accepting a bad deal, but if Ukraine stands alongside a committed Europe, Kyiv will have the leverage to resist imposed settlements.

• This unity is vital for maintaining European security and preventing a precedent where great powers impose solutions on weaker states.

• A clear, unified stance will also boost morale among Ukrainian forces, preventing battlefield fatigue and disillusionment at a critical time.

• 2. Deploying a European Military Tripwire Force in Ukraine.

• This force must be stationed along the frontlines—not relegated to Western Ukraine.

• Its function is deterrence: even if its capabilities are limited (~50-60K troops at best in the initial phase), the tripwire effect is what matters.

• Russia must see that any new aggression will trigger direct military engagement with European powers.

• A parallel force in Western Ukraine should focus on training new brigades, ensuring Ukraine remains militarily capable on its own.

• 3. Escalating European Defense Spending and Military Industrialization.

• Europe must rapidly ramp up arms production, prioritizing:

• 155mm shells;

• Advanced missile systems;

• Long-range strike capabilities (andGermany must drop its hesitancy over the supply of Taurus missiles).

• Europe must reduce reliance on external suppliers and form a continent-wide military production initiative to support both Ukraine’s needs and its own long-term defense posture.

• The Current State of Play: Weak European Commitments.

• Monday’s emergency meeting failed to deliver decisive action on troop deployments.

• Key countries—Spain, Germany, and even Poland—have expressed reluctance to commit forces to Ukraine.

• So far, only the UK has explicitly expressed readiness to commit troops, with France and Denmark likely to follow.

• This is absolutely insufficient.

• (side note: with that said, Poland’s hesitation may be temporary, waiting for a shift in public and political sentiment. And Germany’s stance could shift once Friedrich Merz replaces Olaf Scholz as the chancellor. The latter has consistently been slow and risk-averse on military commitments.)

• No More Hesitation—Europe Must Act.

• The events of the past week have exposed Europe’s strategic vulnerabilities, yet hesitation persists.

• Sending troops, ramping up military production, and restoring deterrence are not radical steps—they are basic necessities.

• This is not the time for passive, reactive policymaking.

• This is the time for aggressive action to prevent the worst-case geopolitical and strategic outcomes from unfolding at Europe’s doorstep.

• (side note: in a near-future post, we shall discuss in-depth policies, tactics and levers that the EU can and should pull to affect Putin’s calculus, re-establish deterrence and help Ukraine regain initiative on the battlefield.)