The history of diplomacy is, in essence, the history of power-seeking balance. Since January 20, with Donald Trump’s return to the White House, Washington has redefined its strategy in Ukraine, adjusting it to an unavoidable premise: the United States will not indefinitely sustain a war effort that Europe is unwilling to support with proportional resources and a coherent strategic vision.
Since the beginning of the conflict, Washington has borne the primary burden of supporting Kyiv, channeling over $75 billion in military, economic, and humanitarian aid. In contrast, Europe has maintained a hesitant stance, characterized by symbolic gestures, unfulfilled promises, and an operational execution marked by sluggishness and lack of cohesion.
The rhetoric of unwavering commitment from European capitals has clashed with an uncomfortable reality: when concrete sacrifices have been required, the response has been insufficient and, in some cases, ridiculous.
The examples are abundant and telling:
- Germany, at the beginning of the war, sent 5,000 helmets to Ukraine when what Kyiv requested were weapons and ammunition. The gesture was not only seen as a mockery but also exposed Berlin’s paralysis in the face of Europe’s new security paradigm.
- Spain committed to sending Leopard 2A4 tanks, but upon arrival in Ukraine, many were found to be rusted and practically inoperable, reflecting Europe’s precarious effort to equip Kyiv with effective military hardware. Moreover, in 2023, Spain became the EU’s top importer of Russian LNG, bringing in 5.21 billion cubic meters between January and September of that year. Although in 2024, Spain’s total gas imports dropped by 28%, the country, along with France and Belgium, was responsible for 85% of the Russian LNG that entered the EU.
- France and Germany promised missiles and ammunition, but deliveries have been sporadic and delayed by European bureaucracy, affecting Ukraine’s operational capacity at critical moments.
- Italy and other European countries have imposed restrictions on the use of the weapons they supplied, prohibiting their use on Russian territory— a limitation that weakens their effectiveness on the battlefield.
Meanwhile, the United States has provided the most advanced weapon systems—HIMARS, Patriot missiles, Abrams tanks—and led the logistics that have enabled Ukraine to sustain its war effort. But with the new administration in Washington, this level of support is no longer sustainable without a proportional commitment from the Europeans.
Europe’s lack of strategic initiative is not a new phenomenon. During the Balkans War in the 1990s, European powers were unable to stop Slobodan Milosevic’s aggression until the United States decided to intervene militarily in Kosovo. The lesson from that time was clear: Europe cannot delegate its security to Washington and expect the White House to act when its own defense structures fail.
However, in the present conflict, Europe seems to have ignored that lesson. The lack of an autonomous defense capability and delays in modernizing its military industry have created a chronic dependence on the United States. There has been no substantial increase in defense spending, nor a concerted effort to develop a security infrastructure capable of sustaining a prolonged conflict without Washington’s intervention.
If the Trump administration significantly reduces or withdraws military assistance to Ukraine, the real test will fall on Berlin, Paris, and Brussels. Will they be able to sustain Ukraine with their own resources, or will they continue waiting for a U.S. intervention that will no longer come?
If Europe does not react swiftly and decisively, the future scenarios are predictable:
- A forced peace agreement, in which Ukraine will be compelled to cede Crimea and part of the Donbas, consolidating Moscow’s influence and setting a precedent where territorial aggression is rewarded.
- A renewed Russian offensive, potentially seeking to expand control beyond the Donbas if it perceives that Ukrainian resistance is weakening due to a lack of Western support.
- The collapse of NATO’s credibility, exposing the reality that without U.S. intervention, European security is a structure without solid foundations.
Security in Europe can no longer rest on the premise that the United States will indefinitely assume the responsibility of protecting the continent. For decades, European governments have reduced their defense budgets, prioritizing domestic economic well-being while relying on Washington’s strategic umbrella. Meanwhile, American citizens face the most expensive healthcare system in the world and a considerable tax burden, while their European allies have enjoyed high living standards without bearing the real cost of their security.
This politically unsustainable reality has been the catalyst for change in Washington. The Trump administration has made it clear that the era of strategic subsidies is over. The United States can no longer afford to finance the defense of allies who, despite declaring their commitment to global stability, have avoided taking on their own responsibilities.
The war in Ukraine will not only determine the future of the invaded country but will also define Europe’s place in the world order. If European capitals fail to respond with the firmness that the situation demands, it will be evident that their influence is merely declarative and that their capacity for action is subordinated to external factors.
Security cannot be an abstract concept upheld by speeches and diplomatic summits. It must be translated into decisions, resources, and political will—elements that Europe has long avoided confronting.
The United States has reached a point where its foreign policy will no longer revolve around sustaining allies who do not sustain their own destiny. The war in Ukraine is a turning point: either Europe assumes its strategic responsibility, or it will remain trapped in the shadow of its own indecision.
History has shown that nations that delegate their security to others ultimately pay a greater price in the future. The question, as always in international politics, is not whether there will be a new order, but who will define it and on what terms.
policyexamination.com 