Europe Pressed to Take the Helm in Ukraine’s Security Future

The most recent round of security deliberations on Ukraine, conducted in Washington this week, represents a turning point in the geopolitical equation of responsibility for the war-torn country. With U.S. President Donald Trump stressing that “Europe must bear the lion’s share,” the argument on how to secure Ukraine is quickly becoming a test case for transatlantic relations, the future of NATO, and the global order.

For almost four years, Europe has been dependent on the United States for defence support, arms transfers, intelligence, and coordination against the Russian incursion into Ukraine. However, the new proposals point towards a shift: Europe is to be primarily responsible for any future security assurances, with Washington taking a supporting role.

This matters because European countries have long been criticized, particularly by Trump, for not investing enough in defense and relying on American military might. The insistence that Europe must supply the majority of troops, logistics, and potentially even command structures is merely an expression of Trump’s larger burden-shifting agenda. It is also an attempt to redefine the war not as a crisis of NATO, but as a largely European problem that the U.S. can manage from behind the scenes.

It is likely to be led by nations such as France, the UK, and Germany, whose unity is still weak. While Prime Minister Keir Starmer and President Emmanuel Macron are publicly in favor of a European-led intervention, Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s hold-back attitude mirrors the general German ambivalence, wherein the military preparedness and public sentiment are not in sync.

Trump’s opposition to sending U.S. ground troops into Ukraine is consistent with his “America First” ideology, under which the United States is trying to decrease direct U.S. involvement in other peoples’ wars. Nevertheless, his openness to airpower, command-and-control capabilities, and intelligence sharing implies that Washington does not plan to give up on Ukraine completely.

The option of U.S. fighter jets enforcing a no-fly zone or American officers overseeing European contingents illustrates a compromise approach: the U.S. retains decisive influence while shifting the bulk of risks and costs onto European allies. This arrangement also ensures that NATO, though not formally intervening as a bloc, remains indirectly involved through integrated planning and oversight.

But such a balance is fragile. Not enough American leadership might embolden Moscow to challenge European will; too much might pull Washington into direct confrontation with Russia, which Trump seems determined to eschew.

The controversy highlights greater questions of NATO’s coherence. Historically, the strength of the alliance has been U.S. leadership and European follow-up. Were Europe to assume leadership on Ukraine, it would presage the development of a more autonomous European defense identity, decreasing dependence on Washington.

The EU has already moved toward defense integration, but a deployment to Ukraine would be its first true test. If successful, it would enhance the EU’s credibility as a geopolitical player. If not, Europe runs the risk of exposing the very same weaknesses Trump has long decried: disunity, underinvestment, and unreadiness militarily.

Germany’s soldiers’ union has already warned that tens of thousands of troops would be needed for any mission of any duration. This is the size of the task: Europe is politically eager but military thin.

For Moscow, all this is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, Trump’s focus on a speedy settlement and his characterization of the war as “Europe’s problem” might encourage Russia to resist and demand concessions, particularly territorial concessions. The Kremlin has always tried to undermine the U.S.-European security relationship, and Trump’s position is feeding into this campaign.

Conversely, the development of a European-led mission indicates that Russia cannot rely solely on Western exhaustion. Even if Washington takes a step back, Moscow would still have to confront the possibility of a large European force at its borders. A NATO-marked or EU-coordinated security pledge for Ukraine would make Russia’s long-term strategic goals more complicated by forcing it to deal with a militarized European region.

For Ukraine, signals are strongly contradictory. On the one hand, that security guarantees are being considered at the highest levels is a glimmer of hope for eventual stability and protection against further Russian aggression. The prospect of air defense, no-fly zones, and European deployments could vastly enhance Kyiv’s chances.

But Trump’s focus on ending “Europe’s war” also triggers apprehensions that Washington will pressure Russia to secure a peace agreement that prioritizes Moscow’s demands. Kyiv is concerned with being coerced into territorial concessions or political compromises at the expense of sovereignty. The Washington confusion signals — a show of support without deploying ground troops, air power without a clear commitment — renders Ukraine’s security prospects uncertain.

This argument is not merely about Ukraine; it is about America’s role in the world. Trump’s strategy represents a larger shift in U.S. foreign policy, one that downgrades expensive foreign entanglements and pushes allies to do more themselves.

Adherents see this as a correction that is necessary, considering the U.S.’s stretched resources and priorities at home. Critics respond that curtailing U.S. leadership jeopardizes breaking up alliances and causing power vacuums that would be filled by rival powers such as Russia and China.

The Washington sessions are more than yet another set of military planning; they are a sign of a turning point in the West’s reaction to Russia’s war. If Europe actually takes the “lion’s share” of security commitments over Ukraine, it will be the first actual step toward a post-American security order in Europe.

But the stakes are enormous. Europe needs to overcome its internal divisions, ramp up military capabilities, and demonstrate that it can deter Russia without relying excessively on American protection. Washington, in turn, has to balance carefully between pulling back from commitments and maintaining its credibility as the bedrock of Western security.

In this changing world, the destiny of Ukraine is in the balance — suspended between a war-weary America, a brazen Russia, and a Europe that is itself trying to reshape itself as a viable military power. The next few months will tell if this transition becomes a permanent realignment or merely another interlude in the protracted and bloody struggle for Ukraine.