“Free world needs new leader”: Statement from Europe marks end of US leadership — international policy expert

The author of the Resurgam Telegram channel, focusing on international politics, has analyzed the implications of the Oval Office meeting.

Before the events at the White House took place, the world saw two interesting news stories that were quickly scrolled through in anticipation of the Trump-Zelensky meeting.

The first was the information that Zelenskyy was to arrive in London after Washington, where Keir Starmer would gather more than 20 leaders of allied countries, including Turkey. 

Obviously, this summit is scheduled less than 48 hours before the meeting that would have taken place in Washington for a reason. The visits of Macron and Starmer were fruitless, as neither could convince Trump to provide guarantees for the allied peacekeeping mission, and they could not even convey the correct information “about the parties' contributions to support Ukraine.” 

These visits were a temperature reading. And the temperature during the visits of the French and British leaders was negative. Obviously, there was a lot riding on Zelenskyy's visit and on Ukraine globally: “What do you decide?": do we go on an independent European-Ukrainian track or do we agree to the American-Moscow track.

When Trump said: “you have no cards,” he was wrong. One of them was a statement by Kaja Kallas before the meeting in Washington. 

Kallas confirmed that the largest package of military aid to Ukraine is being prepared on March 6. And it will come from individual countries, not the EU. Therefore, it will not require the approval of Hungary or Slovakia. Most likely, it will not be a purely “new package” worth 30-40 billion, but rather guarantees of expanded existing assistance, consolidated into one large military program, in line with NATO's June commitment to provide at least 40 billion in direct military support. 

The United States wanted the EU to pay, Europe is ready to pay, but the White House is not interested in this, and they deliberately do not hear it. 

That's why the performance of European leaders “We stand by Ukraine” emerged yesterday, of course, chaotically, but it is also the result of the fact that most European leaders received the answers they expected from both Ukraine and the United States. 

 And yesterday, Trump made one of his biggest domestic and foreign policy mistakes. 

The consequences of this mistake can be summarized by a quote from the head of European diplomacy, Kallas: “The free world needs a new leader”. An open statement of this level from Europe is the end of US leadership in the world.

What about consequences for Ukraine? 

There definitely will be consequences, and, of course, it will become more difficult. If Europe seems to completely outspend the United States on the financial and military side (paying for weapons), then there are still issues: 

• Intelligence

  With Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hegseth at the top of the US defense and intelligence hierarchy, what kind of intelligence sharing would we be talking about? Even if things had been different yesterday? Major US allies have already limited intelligence sharing with the US because of the risk of leaks.

• Air defense missiles and components for American weapons

  Firstly, it is good that Ukraine has not only Patriot. Second, stopping USAI means additional consequences for the White House, blocking missiles for Patriot systems provided by Europe to Ukraine means losing orders in Europe. And provoking what French and Italian developers dream of — replacing American air defense with European developments that are available and not worse. 

  Everything else is the same: Trump can stop the aid by various methods, but it will not be legal, because there are safeguards from Biden. These will be scandals of the highest level. And this will certainly affect Trump in many ways.

• Sanctions

  Why, after each of Trump's statements about sanctions, Europe has said that it does not plan to ease them? Because Trump could hypothetically ease sanctions, but without a coordinated position with Europe, it would be a major political scandal. 

  The United States made commitments as a country, and fulfillment of obligations does not depend on who is president. Plus, Trump has to sell “something” in exchange for easing sanctions — it was supposed to be a separate agreement with Moscow, but now this agreement is not recognized either in Ukraine or in Europe.