Editor’s Note: This piece is brought to you by Kateryna Shtepa, a graduate of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv in American and European Studies and a member of the Ukrainian Foreign Policy Association. Her main interests include American-British relations, the history of economics, and world food security. Be sure to follow her work, here.
The return of Donald Trump to the presidency no longer represents a “shift” in politics, but an entirely new direction – one with consequences for both sides of the Atlantic.
The Transatlantic Partnership between the US and Europe has been defined by a trust built on trade, military agreements, and cooperation in NATO. However, the new administration represents a new era, with shifts that also move in Europe. Vice President Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference set out that “Brussels should ‘step up in a big way to provide for its own defence'”. Between Trump’s expressive policies and the loud statements of his team, European diplomacy faces an entirely new challenge.
Ukraine and Russia: an overview
The main issue for both the previous Democratic administration and the European authorities remains the war in Ukraine. Russia has been at full-scale war with Ukraine for more than three years now. In response to this, America has granted 183 billion US dollars as aid for Ukraine since 2022. Even in 2023 on the 9th of May President Biden signed a lend-lease for military support, but this achieved nothing. The White House then explained its decision to provide grants over loans. The point is that the procedure of lend-lease obliges Ukraine to return military equipment after the war ends. The EU provides 70 billion euros for financial and humanitarian aid and 62 billion euros for military support. The United Kingdom granted 12, 8 billion pounds. Put together, this may sound like an impressive sum of money however in practice, it is only enough only to stop the enemy on the frontlines, nothing more.
Given this expense and the challenging circumstances found on the battlefields, US authorities took the decision to catalyse peace negotiations and end the war. A little over a month has passed since the inauguration of the US president, and several meetings with representatives of the Russian Federation have already occurred. Crucially, it was only the American and Russian representatives that gathered around the table in the UAE. Representatives of the EU or NATO were not invited, despite the facts that their contributions to support Ukrainians matched the US and that the front line is significantly closer to their capitals than it is Washington. At the same time, the Ukrainian side, which officially broke off diplomatic relations with the Russians, is concerned about the issue of a peace treaty on fair terms and has little trust in the newly appointed administration. By not involving any European representatives at the table, the US automatically rejected its partners from this process. America’s unprincipled and harsh policy may well result in a lack of cooperation both from Ukraine and Europe.
Implications for Europe
Unlike Fukuyama’s claim, history has no end and if agreements are signed on terms too favourable to Russia, this offensive might simply be repeated at a time more convenient to the Kremlin. If Ukraine, as a buffer zone between Russia and NATO, surrenders its position, this will lead to a direct clash between the two blocs. In this case, the responsibility for the war will fall on the most powerful countries of the continent, with the United States retreating behind the Atlantic. To avoid such a scenario, another party interested in a fair settlement of the conflict must definitely take on the role in the negotiations.
On the European mainland, the economically and militarily strong countries are bound by collective responsibility and bureaucratic processes to Brussels and therefore cannot make important decisions independently. In such a context, there remains only one nuclear and credible security actor that has the interests to represent Europe, the flexibility to act, and the leverage to generate not only Washington-Kyiv relations, but also, potentially, Washington-Europe relations.
Great Britain was one of the first to support Ukraine in the war, starting on February 24, and initiated several cooperative projects. More recently, on January 16th 2025, a centennial agreement was signed between London and Kyiv. The Agreement stipulates that the United Kingdom will provide Ukraine with at least $3.6 billion in annual military assistance for as long as it is needed. Furthermore, the partnership includes maritime security efforts and the creation of special joint flotillas to bolster security in the Baltic, Black, and Azov Seas. The agreement outlines deepened economic cooperation, with a focus on attracting investments, developing nuclear energy, and replacing Russian technologies. Such agreements oblige the United Kingdom to support Ukraine, cooperate in the economic, nuclear, and energy sectors, and ensure that Ukraine is a national interest of the Kingdom. Great Britain should be present at the negotiations and monitor the terms of signing peace, because in the event of another Russian attack on Ukraine, London’s national and economic interests will suffer.
In particular, Brussels will now have to focus on its problems if America moves away from its policy of loyalty to Europe. As Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas said after Vance’s speech, “Hopefully the Europeans will recognize that their free ride on the coattails of America has come to an end. They’ve had it pretty good, and those days are over.” In 2023, the US became the EU’s leading export destination, accounting for 19.7% of total EU exports outside the bloc, followed by the UK at 13.1%. In terms of imports, the US was the second largest source (after China), providing 13.8% of total EU imports. Trump threatened to impose general tariffs ranging from 10% to 20% on all imports when he came to the White House. Of course, this will affect trading countries, but this is to be expected from a president. For example, during his previous term, Trump blocked the Brussels-Washington negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). According to the initial agreements, customs tariffs should have been reduced, market barriers in the services sector should have been removed, and the regulatory framework should have been unified. If tariffs were raised, the terms of trade would not be so favorable and Europeans would likely have to cooperate more, for example, with China or Latin American countries, or with the BRICS, whose policies differ significantly from the EU’s views. Trump’s “America First” policies provide the fuel for Europe to fracture away from US leadership. As cracks deepen, there is a space to be filled. The UK, a steadfast ally to the US, could attempt to manage relations through diplomacy. Too big of a divide, and the zero-sum game that plays out might benefit other players looking to improve their influence in Europe’
Conclusion
The US’s tough policy could be a chance for the UK to become a full-fledged leader on the continent and to defuse rising political tensions. Both countries have high regulatory and labor standards and strong digital services sectors, and cooperation would help avoid unnecessary regulatory barriers between the United States and the UK. This would also not leave the EU in a difficult situation. Though it seems unlikely, in a changing world, the UK can play its cards right to stabilise Brussels-Washington relations, broker a just peace – or at least not a disadvantageous one – between Kyiv and Moscow, and gain a leading role on the continent once more.