On The Deepening Atlantic Divide: Trump's Increasing Abandonment Of Allies. pushback From Europe and Ukraine, and a new ''minerals deal'' between Washington and Kyiv.
We are now entering the second week of confrontation between Washington and its European allies.
In week one, we had a number of statements made at the NATO Summit by the Secretary of Defense and later Donald Trump himself, which culminated in a confrontation with Ukrainian President Zelensky, where Trump called him a dictator and blamed him for the start of this war.
In this phase of confrontation, things were largely limited to words only.
We had unilateral rhetorical concessions made by Trump, where everything essentially desired by Russia, including a de facto veto on Ukraine’s NATO membership, was implicitly approved by Trump.
Then we had the Vice President JD Vance attack Europeans by saying that their internal problems are a bigger threat than Russia—a country that is now in its third year of invading one of the largest countries in Europe, causing mass destruction, a refugee crisis, and immense human suffering on the continent.
But throughout this process, we were constantly reminded and appealed to by Republicans in Congress and the media, (who were still hopeful that Donald Trump would not abandon European allies) to “watch what he does instead of what he says.”
That apparently, all of this was just another Trump negotiation tactic and was not indicative of the actual conduct the U.S. would eventually pursue.
Trump admin conduct follows initial rhetoric.
Well, in the second week of this new approach by Washington, we are now seeing concrete actions.
First, we saw a meeting between Russian and U.S. delegations in Saudi Arabia, which culminated in Secretary of State Rubio saying that there were many mutual areas of geopolitical and economic interest that Russia and the U.S. could cooperate on—something that hasn’t been said about European allies (by the Trump admin) in a long time.
Then, we saw the U.S. opposing a G7 statement that condemned Russian aggression on the third anniversary (February 24) of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Here, apparently, the U.S. was bothered that Russia’s invasion was being labeled as aggression.
And now, on Monday, we had yet another indignity and embarrassment forced upon us: The United States sided with countries like Belarus and North Korea—against the majority of countries in the U.N., including all of our allies in Europe and elsewhere—to vote against a resolution supporting a just peace in Ukraine and condemning Russia’s invasion, which is now in its third year.
This is remarkable.
This can no longer be explained as mere rhetoric or negotiation tactics.
The U.S. is now voting in the same camp as Belarus.
We need to take a moment and actually reflect on this: we are abandoning allies and alliance structures we have built up over 80 years after WWII and siding with Russia over a country suffering from an invasion.
This is truly remarkable. Is it any wonder, then, that allies are starting to push back?
Europeans rally to push back against Trump.
On Monday, we had Macron visiting Washington, where, in an Oval Office meeting, he pushed back against Trump’s claim that the U.S. was funding most of the war effort. He corrected Trump and urged him to be “frank” in admitting that Europe has covered the majority of the costs for Ukraine.
Then, we had the presumptive next Chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Merz, openly stating that Trump’s commitment to NATO is under question.
He also claimed that the Trump administration, together with Elon Musk, has been interfering in Germany’s affairs, and that Germany is now facing dual pressure from both Russia and the U.S.
Merz even suggested that NATO could look very different by the summer summit and called for European unity.
In a major shift, he even floated the idea of nuclear sharing between France, Germany, and the U.K. to consolidate a European-wide deterrent in case of a U.S. abandonment of its European allies—something we will discuss in future separate posts.
Ukraine unites to secure a better “minerals” deal and to rebut Trump’s ‘‘dictator’’ smear.
But perhaps the most interesting pushback is coming from Ukraine.
One of the risks to the government in Kyiv, after last week’s attacks by Trump—where he (A) blamed Ukraine for the war, (B) called Zelensky a dictator, and (C) claimed that the Ukrainian president had a 4% approval rating—was that it could cause a split in Ukrainian politics and provide an opening for opportunists looking to appease Russia and rise to power with Trump’s help.
Luckily, this has not materialized yet.
Instead, we have seen three important developments from Ukraine.
Firstly, it seems like Ukraine has been successful in watering down the terms of the proposed ‘‘rare earths’’ investment deal from Trump.
Kyiv has now signaled its readiness to finalize a landmark agreement on the joint development of Ukraine’s mineral resources, including oil and gas, following Washington’s decision to withdraw demands for a $500 billion revenue claim on future extraction.
While the agreement does not contain explicit security guarantees, Ukrainian officials emphasize that they have secured far more favorable terms, framing the deal as a strategic expansion of U.S.-Ukraine relations.
Per FT (which broke the story): ‘‘final version of the agreement, dated February 24 would contribute 50 per cent of proceeds from the “future monetisation” of state-owned mineral resources, including oil and gas, and associated logistics. The fund would invest in projects in Ukraine. It excludes mineral resources that already contribute to Ukrainian government coffers, meaning it would not cover the existing activities of Naftogaz or Ukrnafta, Ukraine’s largest gas and oil producers.”
It is unclear what ‘‘future monetisation’’ entails exactly (actual proceeds from resources or associated securities or both?) but that “the fund would invest in projects in Ukraine” is clearly a major win for Ukraine.
Overall, this seems like a good deal so far: Ukraine gets to secure U.S. involvement and Trump can pretend that he took ‘‘the minerals’’ and justify (to his MAGA base) future U.S. security aid as ‘‘protecting our own investments’’.
After all, what is more America First than defending America’s financial interests abroad?
If there is any non-ethics/grand strategy/values/ based justification to appeal to MAGA base (and justifying continuous military aid to Ukraine) then it is surely of ‘‘we gotta defend our minerals claims’’ variety.
Now, the lack of security guarantees in this specific agreement is a problem.
But Ukrainian leaders have estimated (probably correctly) that it would be best to secure this minor win in getting a watered down agreement, and leave security guarantees discussions for some other time.
The new updated version of the deal is yet to be signed - but Ukrainian leaders would be shrewd to make a big PR spectacle out of it.
2) Secondly, Zelensky made a very smart move by announcing that he was open to stepping down if that guaranteed Ukraine’s NATO membership and a lasting peace.
The downside of this statement is that it legitimizes the idea that other states can dictate when and how Zelensky leaves—when only Ukrainians should have the authority to decide and have a say on the matter.
This is a real risk, as it normalizes external discussions about his departure.
However, against this risk, Zelensky is also making a strategic maneuver: he is demanding a high price for any pressure on him and positioning his presidency as being in the national interest.
By linking his departure to NATO membership, he is reinforcing the idea that peace in Ukraine must come with concrete security guarantees.
NATO membership is one option, but there could be other ways to secure Ukraine’s future.
This is a crucial reminder: Ukraine needs lasting security guarantees to ensure peace and stability.
In addition, Zelensky is successfully pushing back against the narrative that he is clinging to power for personal gain.
He is showing that he is committed to Ukraine’s national interest, even if that means stepping down.
This directly counters Trump’s portrayal of him as a self-serving bureaucrat.
3) Further reinforcing this, Ukraine’s parliament, the Rada, unanimously affirmed—without a single vote against—that Zelensky must remain in power until martial law is lifted and elections can be held.
Ukraine’s constitution already precludes elections during wartime, especially with occupied territories and logistical challenges.
Now, the parliament has further validated this position and reaffirmed his mandate and legitimacy to continue serving as Ukraine’s President - demonstrating internal political cohesion and a strong stance against external narratives painting Ukraine as a dictatorship.
This is a remarkable turnaround: not a single Ukrainian MP voted against the resolution affirming Zelensky’s legitimacy.
(side note: this is also a major reminder to Putin - who seeks to divide and weaken Ukraine from within by promoting narratives that question the government’s legitimacy - a narrative that Trump unfortunately utilized in his own political confrontation with Zelensky last week. Furthermore, this is a signal for FSB planners that as of today, there is little appetite for pro-Russia coups)
As the Trump administration is increasingly demonstrating—through actions, not just words—that it is becoming a nihilistic actor in international affairs, European allies are starting to push back with concrete actions of their own.
It is not too late for the Trump administration to abandon this self-destructive path, which would only weaken U.S. prestige, influence, and power by alienating allies in favor of Russia.