Scandal in the Oval Office: Trump vs. Zelensky – Is Ukraine Aid Now at Risk?

Current Situation of US and European Support for Ukraine

The recent tensions between Washington and Kyiv—culminating in a dramatic fallout during a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—have raised pressing questions about the future of support for Ukraine. In particular, the debate revolves around how crucial US aid has been to the course of the war and whether Europe—either alone or with the help of additional allies—can provide Ukraine with sufficient support. The following analysis examines US military assistance, Europe’s capacity to support Ukraine without the US, additional backers, Trump’s motives, Zelensky’s role, possible concessions, and future scenarios based on current reports and expert assessments.

1. Current US Aid to Ukraine

Scale of Support

Since the beginning of the war, the United States has been by far the largest supporter of Ukraine. By early 2024, the US had pledged and partially delivered approximately €69 billion in assistance. This package includes military equipment, financial support for Ukraine’s state budget, and humanitarian aid. No other country comes close to this level of contribution—the second-largest individual donor, Germany, has provided around €22 billion in direct aid.

US assistance includes advanced weaponry such as artillery, HIMARS rocket launchers, Patriot air defense systems, tanks, and soon-to-be-delivered F-16 fighter jets. Additionally, the US supplies extensive ammunition, intelligence support, and training for Ukrainian troops. Beyond military aid, Washington has allocated billions in financial assistance to keep the Ukrainian government running, ensuring salaries and pensions are paid. Without this level of support, Ukraine would face severe difficulties in maintaining its defensive war against Russia.

Impact on the War’s Progress

US assistance has been a decisive factor in Ukraine’s ability to withstand the Russian invasion and even achieve territorial gains. Precision Western weapon systems—primarily from the US—enabled Ukraine’s military to disrupt Russian supply lines (e.g., through HIMARS strikes) and launch major counteroffensives. Western arms played a critical role in Ukraine’s successful retaking of Kharkiv and Kherson in late 2022. Additionally, US air defense systems shield Ukrainian cities from Russian missiles and drone attacks.

The significance of US aid cannot be overstated. According to Eastern Europe expert Ulrich Schmid, American military and economic assistance has been “crucial and cannot easily be replaced.” Without Western—especially US—supplies and financial support, Ukraine would likely be under much greater pressure or would have already lost control over significant parts of its territory. This support strengthens Ukraine’s defensive capabilities and simultaneously enhances Kyiv’s negotiating position in potential peace talks with Moscow.

Consequences of a US Aid Withdrawal

A sudden halt or drastic reduction in US aid would be a severe blow to Ukraine. Western analysts warn that such a scenario would create “enormous security risks”. If Ukraine’s military is left without replenishment of ammunition, spare parts, and advanced weaponry, Russian forces could begin regaining territory. Moreover, the morale of the Ukrainian population and armed forces could weaken due to the perception of dwindling Western support.

Ulrich Schmid predicts that a cessation of US aid “would be a major setback” and that the American role cannot be easily replaced. Such a loss of the primary source of military assistance would shift the war’s dynamics in Russia’s favor. Moscow would likely seize the opportunity to intensify its offensives, while Kyiv would either become increasingly reliant on European support or be forced to consider a ceasefire.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio succinctly expressed the concern: “If Trump decides to pull out, no one on this planet will be able to bring the warring parties to the negotiating table.” This raises fears that without the US, the conflict could either remain frozen indefinitely or Ukraine could become militarily overwhelmed.

However, a US withdrawal would also serve as a wake-up call for Europe. Many European leaders recognize that a Russian victory in Ukraine would carry serious long-term costs and security risks for Europe itself. As a result, European countries would likely increase their aid to Ukraine to partially fill the gap left by Washington.

Yet, despite Europe’s willingness to step up, the sheer scale of US aid highlights its indispensable role in the war—a role that cannot easily be assumed by other Western nations.

2. Europe’s Capacity to Support Ukraine Without the US

Economic and Military Resources of the EU

The European Union and its member states have also mobilized extensive aid for Ukraine. In total, European institutions and individual European countries have pledged financial, humanitarian, and military aid amounting to hundreds of billions of euros over the past two years. According to the Ukraine Support Tracker, as of early 2024, total international aid commitments exceeded €260 billion, with approximately €108 billion allocated for military support. The largest share still comes from the United States, but Europe significantly increased its contributions in 2023 and is working on establishing long-term support mechanisms.

For instance, the EU provided €18 billion in macro-financial assistance in 2023 and has planned a new multi-year support package worth €50 billion through 2027. On the military front, European nations have also made substantial contributions:

• Germany is the second-largest bilateral supporter after the US, supplying weapons worth billions, including IRIS-T air defense systems, self-propelled howitzers, Leopard 2 tanks, and ammunition.

• The United Kingdom, despite leaving the EU, has remained a key European player, supplying anti-tank missiles, Challenger 2 tanks, and long-range missiles, while also investing heavily in Ukrainian soldier training.

• Poland and the Baltic states have committed an exceptionally high percentage of their GDP to aid Ukraine, donating large portions of their own stocks of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and ammunition.

• France has provided air defense systems, CAESAR howitzers, and armored vehicles, while also playing a diplomatic role.

• Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden, and several other European nations have contributed weapons, funding, and humanitarian assistance.

However, a critical question remains: Are Europe’s resources sufficient to replace the US if necessary?

Europe’s Industrial and Military Readiness

While the combined economies of EU member states are comparable in size to the US, their military capabilities have lagged behind for decades. After the end of the Cold War, European armies were downsized, and defense production was reduced. The war in Ukraine has exposed these weaknesses, particularly in ammunition supplies.

Ukraine fires thousands of artillery shells per day—far more than European arms manufacturers could initially produce. By early 2023, annual European production of 155mm artillery shells was only in the low six-figure range, whereas Ukraine’s estimated monthly need was around 200,000 rounds. In March 2023, the EU pledged to deliver 1 million artillery shells within a year, but by spring 2024, only about 520,000 rounds had been delivered—just over half of the target. The main reasons: limited production capacity and delays in orders.

Expanding Production Capacity

To address these shortages, the EU launched several initiatives in 2023, including the ASAP program (Act in Support of Ammunition Production) and additional funding programs investing billions in expanding European defense industries.

The goal is to increase annual European ammunition production to 2 million shells by the end of 2025, effectively quadrupling output. Additionally, EU member states are procuring ammunition from non-European suppliers, such as South Korea.

At the same time, defense budgets are increasing across Europe:

• Germany, for example, has created a €100 billion special fund for the Bundeswehr and aims to spend 2% of its GDP on defense.

However, Europe is still unable to fully replace the US military role in the short term. Professor Ulrich Schmid warns that “American military assistance cannot be easily replaced.” Even if Europe steps in to fill the gap left by the US, it would require massive financial commitments and the challenge of ramping up production capacity quickly.

The Role of Key European Nations

Certain European countries would have to take on significant responsibilities:

• Germany has a strong defense industry specializing in tanks, artillery, and air defense and has the economic power to increase its support further—though domestic political debates have sometimes slowed its military commitments.

• France can provide advanced technology, such as Rafale fighter jets and additional air defense systems, but remains cautious about escalating tensions with Russia.

• Poland and the Baltic states would likely do everything possible to secure a Ukrainian victory—or at least prevent a Russian victory—but their own stockpiles are finite.

• The UK, acting outside of the EU, has been one of the most consistent supporters and is likely to continue this role, both as a geopolitical player and to reinforce its position as Europe’s leading military power.

• Italy and Spain could increase their support, though their governments face internal resistance from certain pro-Russian political factions.

• Non-EU European countries, such as Norway, also contribute significantly—Oslo has launched one of the largest per capita aid packages for Ukraine, pledging €1.5 billion annually through 2027.

Overall, Europe has the economic potential to finance Ukraine without US assistance. However, the critical issue is political will: Can Europe sustain the financial burden and acknowledge the long-term security implications of allowing Ukraine to fall?

The diplomatic fallout in Washington served as a wake-up call for many European leaders. As one European official put it, “It has become painfully clear that Trump’s administration cannot be relied upon to counter Russian aggression.” This means that Europe will likely increase its support, rather than let Ukraine collapse.

Conclusion: Europe’s Capacity to Replace the US

In an emergency scenario, Europe could likely prevent Ukraine from complete military collapse if Washington cuts its support—but only through significant efforts and not indefinitely.

• Short-term: Europe still lacks the industrial capacity to meet Ukraine’s full military needs, particularly for ammunition and heavy weapons.

• Medium-to-long-term: The EU and its members are working to close these gaps—such as the 2 million shells per year production target by 2025.

• Economic potential: The EU’s €16 trillion economy could, in theory, cover larger financial aid packages.

• The key challenge: Unity and coordination—Europe must act collectively to maximize its resources. Currently, aid is fragmented, with some support coming from bilateral agreements and some via EU mechanisms. A more centralized approach, such as a dedicated European Ukraine Fund or joint arms procurement initiatives, may be necessary for greater efficiency and speed.

3. Supporters Outside the EU

Beyond Europe, Ukraine receives support from a coalition of democratic nations, with Canada, Japan, and Australia among the most significant contributors. However, several other countries have also provided assistance in various forms.

Canada

As a close ally of the US and home to a large Ukrainian diaspora, Canada has provided substantial aid. Since 2022, Ottawa has committed approximately €5.7 billion in support, including:

• Military aid: Armored vehicles, artillery guns, 8 Leopard 2 tanks, and air defense equipment.

• Financial and humanitarian aid: Loans to the Ukrainian government and assistance in training Ukrainian soldiers.

In June 2023, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced an additional CAN$500 million in military aid and unveiled a multi-year assistance program. Although Canada’s armed forces are relatively small, its financial contributions could be further increased. Bipartisan political support for Ukraine remains strong across Canadian political parties.

Japan

Japan primarily contributes financial and humanitarian aid. As a G7 member, Tokyo has pledged over $7 billion since the beginning of the war, including:

• More than $5 billion in budget support in 2023 alone.

• Humanitarian aid and non-lethal equipment such as vehicles, bulletproof vests, and generators.

Due to Japan’s pacifist post-war constitution, it does not provide offensive weapons. However, Japan made a historic shift by allowing the delivery of military equipment such as helmets, bulletproof vests, and some non-lethal vehicles—a first in Japanese security policy.

Japan could increase its financial support further. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has emphasized that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a warning sign for Asia, particularly regarding Taiwan. However, Japan’s constitutional restrictions on arms exports limit its ability to send direct military aid, meaning monetary support is likely to remain its primary contribution.

Australia

Australia is one of the largest non-NATO military donors to Ukraine. By mid-2023, Canberra had pledged approximately $1.3 billion in aid, of which $1.1 billion was allocated to military support, including:

• Bushmaster armored vehicles, widely used by Ukrainian troops for troop transport.

• Artillery ammunition, drones, and light weaponry.

• Humanitarian assistance.

Both Australia’s previous conservative government and the current Labor government have strongly backed Ukraine. While Australia could expand its support, its regional security concerns, particularly regarding China, place limitations on diverting resources. Still, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has clearly stated that supporting Ukraine is crucial for defending the rules-based international order—a strategic interest for Australia.

Other Supporting Countries

• Norway (not an EU member): A wealthy energy exporter, Norway has launched a generous aid program—pledging $7.3 billion over five years in civilian and military support. Per capita, Norway’s contributions rank among the largest in the world.

• Switzerland: While militarily neutral, Switzerland provides financial and humanitarian assistance and has participated in sanctions against Russia.

• Turkey: A complex actor, Turkey supplies armed drones (notably the Bayraktar TB2) to Ukraine but also maintains diplomatic ties with Russia and avoids direct military confrontation.

• South Korea: Due to its own security concerns with North Korea, South Korea does not directly supply weapons to Ukraine. However, it has contributed indirectly by selling tanks and ammunition to the US and Poland, which in turn help replenish Western stockpiles for Ukraine.

• Israel: Given Russia’s influence in Syria, Israel has remained cautious about military involvement. However, it has supplied humanitarian aid and defensive equipment, such as drone warning systems.

Potential for Expanding Support

Several of these countries could increase their contributions:

• Canada has already committed aid through 2027 and could send additional military equipment (e.g., artillery or older aircraft), in coordination with the US.

• Japan may boost financial aid further and is debating loosening arms export restrictions to supply more military-grade equipment.

• Australia is considering additional vehicle and artillery shipments—it recently announced its largest-ever military aid package for Ukraine.

• South Korea is under Western pressure to supply more ammunition—either directly or through third-party deals. Given South Korea’s advanced defense industry, there is room for increased support.

Additionally, international financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF—as well as wealthy Gulf states—could play a larger role in funding reconstruction or military spending. So far, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have contributed only minor amounts but may increase their involvement for geopolitical reasons, particularly to distance themselves from Russia and China.

The Global Coalition’s Impact

None of these countries alone can replace the US as a primary backer. However, together, their support significantly strengthens Ukraine’s resistance.

For example, the combined aid from Canada, Japan, Australia, and Norway already amounts to tens of billions of dollars. This broad international coalition sends a clear message to Russia that global opposition to its invasion extends beyond the West.

At the same time, it serves as a signal to Washington:

If the US withdraws, other nations will step in—though not at the same scale.

4. Trump’s Goals and Strategies

The confrontation between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office highlights the political motives of the former and now returning US president. Why did Trump escalate the situation with such intensity? Was it simply an impulsive outburst, or was it part of a strategic plan? Additionally, how does Trump’s stance influence the Republican Party and Congress?

Political Motives Behind Trump’s Escalation

Observers offer two possible explanations for Trump’s outburst against Zelenskyy. Political scientist Thomas Greven suggests that it was either:

1. A genuine emotional outburst, revealing Trump’s uncontrolled and domineering personality.

2. A calculated maneuver designed to justify ending US support for Ukraine.

Greven believes the latter is more likely. The Oval Office incident appeared to be a staged spectacle, where Trump and his vice president, J.D. Vance, deliberately humiliated Zelenskyy. Notably, Vance played an unusually active role, suggesting the event was carefully coordinated.

Trump accused Zelenskyy of ingratitude and blamed him for escalating toward World War III. Finally, in front of live cameras, he issued an ultimatum:

“You’re either going to make a deal, or we’re out!”

This “deal-or-nothing” approach makes Trump’s objective clear:

• He wants to force a quick settlement to the war.

• He seeks to portray himself as the leader who can end the conflict swiftly, whereas in his narrative, the Ukrainians are unnecessarily prolonging the war.

Reports suggest that Trump was considering a deal where:

• The US gains access to Ukraine’s raw materials (e.g., lithium, titanium, and rare earths).

• A portion of the profits would go into a reconstruction fund.

However, the draft proposal lacked any security guarantees for Ukraine—a major concern for Zelenskyy.

Trump’s real interest in this “resource deal” appears to be:

• Securing economic benefits for the US.

• Demonstrating that he does not issue “blank checks” as Biden supposedly did.

Additionally, domestic politics played a role:

• Trump’s “America First” base is skeptical of foreign aid.

• By painting Zelenskyy as ungrateful and threatening to cut support, Trump taps into nationalist sentiments among voters who prefer to see US tax dollars spent at home rather than on a war in Europe.

His position on Russia is also key.

• Trump has repeatedly signaled his preference for negotiations with Putin.

• He downplays the threat from Russia, unlike most US foreign policy analysts.

• Some critics, like historian Timothy Snyder, argue that Trump appeases Putin while humiliating an ally.

By acting tough against Zelenskyy, Trump may also be signaling to Putin that he is open to a deal that includes Russian territorial gains.

Calculated Move or Emotional Outburst?

Was Trump’s outburst deliberate, or did he genuinely lose control?

Greven believes it was a calculated ploy to justify cutting US aid.

• Supporting this theory is the fact that Trump immediately took concrete actions afterward.

• Reports surfaced that the US planned to halt military aid worth billions, including radar systems, vehicles, ammunition, and missiles.

This suggests that Trump’s Oval Office confrontation was meant to create a pretext for his Ukraine policy shift.

However, Trump’s impulsive nature shouldn’t be underestimated.

• His past is full of unpredictable outbursts.

• Some reports indicate that he personally felt provoked by Zelenskyy.

• Zelenskyy crossed his arms and refused to apologize—a gesture that may have triggered Trump’s anger.

Some speculate that:

• Trump expected Zelenskyy to back down.

• When Zelenskyy remained firm, Trump lost his temper.

In the end, it was probably a mix of both:

• Trump used his aggressive personality strategically to send a message.

• His “escalate-to-deescalate” approach aimed to pressure Ukraine into compliance—

• But it was a risky strategy that could easily spiral out of control.

Impact on the Republican Party and Congress

Trump’s tough stance on Ukraine has consolidated Republican support behind him.

• Many Republican lawmakers publicly praised Trump for his “strong leadership” against Zelenskyy.

• Right-wing media and social media platforms (e.g., X/Twitter) were flooded with comments celebrating how Trump “put Zelenskyy in his place.”

• Even moderate and traditionally pro-Ukraine Republicans have shifted their stance.

Example:

• Senator Lindsey Graham, once a strong advocate for Ukraine, now criticizes Zelenskyy.

• Graham’s statement:

“I don’t know if we can ever negotiate with Zelenskyy again.”

This shows how Trump’s influence has reshaped the Republican Party’s foreign policy stance.

However, there are some dissenting voices:

• Congressman Mike Lawler warned:

“We must save our relationship with Ukraine. Failure would be catastrophic for Europe and the free world.”

But such moderate perspectives are rare in today’s Trump-dominated Republican Party.

Congressional Deadlock Over Ukraine Aid

Trump’s position has worsened the gridlock in Congress over Ukraine funding.

• Trump-aligned Republicans blocked new aid packages in 2023.

• As a result, Congress failed to approve any new Ukraine funding that year.

• Democrats almost unanimously support Ukraine aid, but the Republican majority in the House and Trump allies in the Senate can delay or block further assistance.

Trump’s anti-Ukraine rhetoric has strengthened GOP hardliners.

• Republican lawmakers now fear backlash from Trump or pro-Trump primary challengers if they vote for Ukraine aid.

• This “chilling effect” makes it unlikely that new Ukraine funding will pass easily.

Even if Biden’s White House wanted to continue support,

• Congress lacks the political will to approve additional assistance.

• Republican leaders have mostly aligned with Trump’s position.

Greven notes:

“Opposition to Trump’s Ukraine policy in the US is driven mainly by domestic economic concerns—not by the war itself.”

Many Americans are not fully engaged with global affairs, so they don’t see the strategic risks of abandoning Ukraine.

Instead, the Ukraine issue is framed as a waste of US tax dollars, and Trump leverages this sentiment for political gain.

For the Republican Party, this represents a major shift away from traditional pro-NATO foreign policy toward nationalist isolationism.

• If Trump sticks to this course, the GOP may completely pivot away from long-term Ukraine support.

• Instead, the party could seek a settlement with Putin, abandoning Kyiv in the process.

Conclusion

Trump’s Oval Office confrontation with Zelenskyy served two strategic goals:

1. It gave him a justification to reduce US aid to Ukraine.

2. It strengthened his control over the Republican Party’s stance on the war.

However, this strategy carries major risks:

• It damages transatlantic relations.

• It may harm US interests in the long run.

Even some Republican critics warn that Trump’s stance could backfire, weakening the US-led Western alliance and emboldening adversaries like Russia and China.

5. The Role of Zelenskyy

The tensions between Washington and Kyiv raise the question of whether President Volodymyr Zelenskyy himself contributed to the strained relationship with the US. Did he make mistakes, or was his course of action simply inevitable given the circumstances?

Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized Zelenskyy in recent weeks, accusing him of unnecessarily prolonging the war, failing to do enough for peace, and even acting like a “dictator” by refusing to hold elections. From Trump’s perspective, which is shared by some Republicans, Zelenskyy should have been more willing to negotiate or make concessions rather than insisting on full military victory. Washington was also irritated by Zelenskyy’s insistence on preconditions in negotiations over a resource deal. The Ukrainian government demanded firm security guarantees from the US before committing to the agreement. Zelenskyy made it clear that an economic arrangement alone would not suffice to initiate peace talks with Russia—concrete US guarantees for Ukraine’s security were essential. This stance was perceived in Washington as inflexibility, and Trump and his team were reportedly frustrated by what they saw as constant demands for more weapons, money, and commitments without corresponding flexibility in return.

Further fueling tensions were Zelenskyy’s remarks, which—though indirectly—contradicted Trump. When Trump accused him of ingratitude and implied he was responsible for prolonging the war, Zelenskyy felt compelled to respond. In a video address, he emphasized that Ukraine had sought peace from the very beginning, directly opposing Trump’s narrative that the Ukrainian leadership was dragging out the war. Though Zelenskyy did not mention Trump by name, the target of his message was clear. Trump, in turn, escalated the rhetoric, again calling Zelenskyy a “dictator without elections” and warning him to “act quickly, or you won’t have a country left.” This attack focused on Zelenskyy’s decision to postpone presidential elections. The Ukrainian president cited the country’s constitution, which prohibits elections under martial law—an approach that is standard in many democracies under extreme wartime conditions. Nevertheless, Trump used this to challenge Zelenskyy’s legitimacy, accusing him of clinging to power. In reality, Zelenskyy had little choice; organizing elections while the country was under daily bombardment and millions of Ukrainians were displaced or fighting at the front was practically and legally impossible. European leaders, including German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, firmly rejected Trump’s accusations, calling them “false and dangerous,” emphasizing that “free and fair elections cannot take place in the middle of a war.”

From Ukraine’s perspective, Zelenskyy’s position was largely unavoidable. His foremost responsibility as president is to defend the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. A peace deal at any cost—through territorial concessions or compromises without security guarantees—would be seen as a betrayal, one that the Ukrainian people would likely reject. He also faces immense internal pressure from segments of society and the military that refuse any compromise with Moscow, given the devastation Russia has inflicted. Any sign of weakness could be exploited by Putin. This is why Zelenskyy consistently asserts that his stance toward Russia “cannot change” as long as Ukrainian territory remains occupied. His minimum demands—a Russian withdrawal, security guarantees, and a just peace—are, from Kyiv’s perspective, the bare minimum for a lasting resolution. When Trump interprets this as stubbornness, it reflects a fundamental disconnect: for Ukraine, the war is existential, while for Trump, it is an external conflict he seeks to end quickly, even if it means sacrificing Ukrainian interests.

Nevertheless, some argue that Zelenskyy could have been more diplomatic to prevent the rupture with Washington. Critics suggest he might have played to Trump’s ego, shown greater deference, or been more explicitly grateful in order to secure continued support. Zelenskyy, however, did attempt damage control after the Oval Office confrontation. He avoided escalating the dispute, reaffirmed his commitment to strong US-Ukraine relations, and even gave an interview to Trump-friendly Fox News, seeking to de-escalate tensions. He refrained from personal attacks on Trump and reiterated that Ukraine remained grateful for all US assistance. His careful response demonstrated his awareness of how crucial US support remains and his unwillingness to risk it over rhetoric. Yet, there was little he could compromise on. Had he accepted Trump’s demand for a “deal” without concrete security guarantees, he would have weakened Ukraine’s strategic position. Similarly, had he conceded on the election issue, he would have bolstered Russian propaganda portraying Ukraine as undemocratic.

Ultimately, the tensions are less about individual missteps than about fundamental differences in interests and perspectives. Zelenskyy is forced to extract the maximum support for Ukraine while ensuring that he does not alienate key allies. Balancing these competing priorities is extraordinarily difficult. Some analysts suggest that Zelenskyy could have anticipated Trump’s use of the meeting as political theater and managed expectations accordingly. There were indications beforehand that Trump would stage the encounter to his advantage. Some advisers suggested Kyiv should present agreements like the resource deal as a success, giving Trump something he could claim as a victory. Zelenskyy did, in fact, offer a significant concession—proposing that 50% of Ukraine’s resource revenues be allocated to a joint fund with the US. However, without security guarantees, he could not go further. In hindsight, one might debate whether he could have taken a softer rhetorical approach, displaying more understanding of Trump’s position. But these are minor tactical considerations. Strategically, Zelenskyy had no real alternative. His country is in a fight for survival, and he cannot afford to appear weak. Had he yielded too much, he would have risked undermining Ukraine’s war effort, weakening his leadership domestically, and emboldening Putin.

Zelenskyy is in a dilemma. His leadership has been pivotal in organizing Ukraine’s defense, securing international support, and achieving significant military successes against Russia. The current friction with the US is more a result of shifting political dynamics in Washington than of any errors on Zelenskyy’s part. Nevertheless, given the uncertain relationship with Trump, he will likely intensify efforts to solidify Europe as Ukraine’s primary diplomatic and strategic anchor.

6. Possible Diplomatic and Economic Concessions

Given the fragile nature of U.S. support for Ukraine, the question arises whether Europe or Ukraine itself will need to make certain concessions—either to keep Washington engaged or to secure a realistic chance for peace with Russia. But what kind of compromises are possible, and what would their consequences be?

Concessions to the U.S.

One of the most obvious concessions Europe could make to the U.S. would be to shoulder a larger share of the burden in the Ukraine war. This would mean increasing financial contributions and stepping up military aid to reduce Washington’s obligations. In practice, this is already happening, as EU states have ramped up their support. This move aligns with Trump’s repeated demand for “fair burden-sharing” among Western allies. However, the real question is whether this would be enough to satisfy Trump. He does not want an open-ended commitment—he wants quick, tangible results. A deeper concession might be necessary: Europe could be pressured into urging Zelenskyy to consider negotiations and compromise. If European leaders—begrudgingly—began advising Ukraine to explore diplomatic solutions, this would be a major political concession to Trump and, indirectly, to Putin. Publicly, European leaders insist that “nobody wants peace more than the Ukrainians themselves” and that Ukraine will not be forced into negotiations while Russia continues its aggression. However, behind closed doors, some European capitals might begin discreetly nudging Kyiv toward a more pragmatic stance if U.S. support were to collapse completely—simply to prevent the worst-case scenario.

A specific concession was already being considered: the resource deal that had been floated in U.S.-Ukraine negotiations. Europe might decide to back this model or expand upon it to appease Washington. Ukraine holds significant reserves of critical minerals (lithium, rare earth elements, titanium, etc.), which are essential for high-tech industries and defense production. A proposed “resources for security” deal would allow U.S. companies to extract these resources in partnership with Ukraine, with a significant portion of the revenues channeled into a fund (including Western corporate investments). In exchange, Ukraine would receive long-term support and, implicitly, a form of security guarantee. Zelenskyy has already signaled a willingness to share Ukraine’s resource wealth in exchange for security commitments. A deeper concession to the U.S. could involve granting preferential access to American companies for Ukraine’s reconstruction efforts, offering extensive investment opportunities, or legally binding future profits from Ukraine’s mining sector to U.S. firms. Such a deal would allow Trump to tell his voters: “We are getting something in return for our money.” However, the downside would be that Ukraine would effectively give up a degree of economic sovereignty and risk becoming dependent on U.S. corporations. There are also corruption risks involved in such arrangements, and the Ukrainian public could perceive this as selling out national resources to foreign interests.

Concessions to Russia

The most contentious question is whether Ukraine (and the West) will ultimately have to make territorial or political compromises with Russia to secure peace. So far, Zelenskyy has categorically ruled out ceding Ukrainian territory, particularly areas occupied since 2022—and by extension, Crimea. Western nations have publicly supported this stance, insisting that the fate of Ukrainian territory must be decided by Ukrainians. However, if the battlefield remains deadlocked and Western support declines, some European leaders might begin to wonder whether a ceasefire would be preferable to endless war, even if it means de facto recognizing Russian territorial gains. One often-debated scenario is a freezing of the frontlines—essentially locking in the current territorial situation while declaring a ceasefire without a full peace treaty. This would mean that Russia keeps control of occupied territories for the time being, but active combat would end. In return, Russia might pledge not to launch further offensives. Such an arrangement would resemble the Korean Armistice of 1953, where both sides halted fighting without resolving the fundamental conflict.

The implications would be profound: millions of Ukrainians would remain under Russian occupation, large parts of the country would be devastated without any clear path to reintegration, and Russia would have partially achieved its war objectives—securing land and a land corridor to Crimea. More dangerously, there is no guarantee that Russia would honor such a ceasefire in the long term. Moscow might exploit a pause in fighting to regroup and rearm, preparing for a future offensive once Ukraine is more isolated.

Nevertheless, this “forced peace” scenario is reportedly being considered in both Washington and some European capitals behind closed doors. The central question is: Would a bad peace be better than an endless war? Trump himself has hinted that he might accept a compromise where Russia “keeps some territories” in exchange for ending the war. Some of Trump’s advisors, such as General Keith Kellogg, have proposed a ceasefire along current frontlines, with negotiations to follow at a later stage. Such an approach would largely align with Russian demands and require massive concessions from Ukraine—essentially abandoning the goal of full sovereignty restoration. Eastern European nations would fiercely oppose such a deal. Poland and the Baltic states have warned that any concession to Russian aggression would weaken European security in the long run and embolden further territorial expansion. However, if Ukraine finds itself exhausted militarily and financially, pressure could mount for a temporary settlement, even if it is deeply flawed. One potential diplomatic concession might be for Ukraine to suspend its NATO ambitions, instead accepting a neutral status with international security guarantees. Zelenskyy has previously signaled that Kyiv could consider neutrality if credible security guarantees were provided, but after Russia’s invasion in 2022—despite the Budapest Memorandum—Ukraine has little trust in such promises. Another option could be for Ukraine to “freeze” the issue of Crimea, postponing any decisions on its status for several years in exchange for a ceasefire.

Would Europe Make Concessions to Russia?

Direct concessions to Russia seem unlikely—Europe will not lift sanctions or reintegrate Russia into the global economy without a meaningful resolution to the war. However, in the long term, Europe might enter talks on a new European security framework that includes Russian interests. This could involve arms control discussions, agreements on troop deployments in Eastern Europe, or diplomatic compromises. Such negotiations would, in effect, be a reluctant acknowledgment that Putin remains a power to be reckoned with, something that Eastern European countries strongly oppose.

The Consequences of Possible Compromises

All of these scenarios—whether concessions to the U.S. or to Russia—carry serious consequences. Making concessions to the U.S. (such as granting preferential business deals or pressuring Kyiv to negotiate) might temporarily ease tensions with Trump, but it could undermine the West’s credibility in this conflict. If Europe were to pressure Zelenskyy into negotiations, it could fracture Western unity against Russian aggression. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni warned that “every division in the West weakens us and empowers those who seek the destruction of our civilization.” She proposed a transatlantic summit to resolve U.S.-European disagreements before they deepen further. European leaders understand that a rupture between the U.S. and Europe would ultimately benefit Moscow the most. That is why diplomatic mediation with Trump is already underway—as Meloni suggested—to try and keep him engaged without compromising fundamental principles.

On the other hand, concessions to Russia—especially territorial ones—would have even more profound consequences. It would set a dangerous precedent that borders can be changed through force, encouraging other aggressors worldwide. If the international community allows Russia to hold onto conquered Ukrainian land, it could embolden further territorial expansion elsewhere, from the South China Sea to the Middle East. For Ukraine itself, any forced land concessions would be politically and socially destabilizing, potentially leading to domestic unrest, anger within the military, or even resistance against the Ukrainian government itself. Many Ukrainians now see their fight as not only a battle for national survival but also for the defense of European values. If the war ends without a clear resolution, extremist or radical forces could gain influence, questioning Kyiv’s legitimacy.

From a European perspective, neither concessions to the U.S. nor to Russia are desirable if they undermine core principles. Ideally, Europe and its allies will continue to support Ukraine to a point where it can negotiate from a position of strength rather than being coerced into unfavorable terms. However, geopolitical realities may force compromises. If so, these must be designed to create a lasting peace, rather than merely providing Russia a temporary breather before its next aggression.

7. Future Prospects

How might U.S. and European policies on Ukraine evolve in the coming years? Experts outline different scenarios depending on whether the current course is corrected or solidified.

Short-term (next 1–2 years): Under Donald Trump’s presidency, it is expected that the U.S. will not approve any new aid packages for Ukraine, apart from possibly some restricted, purpose-bound assistance. If the Washington fallout is not resolved, a complete halt to U.S. military aid could become a reality within the coming months. The last weapons tranche approved by Congress will then have been exhausted. Trump may attempt to push forward his announced negotiations with Russia—likely through his special envoy (former General Keith Kellogg) or other intermediaries. A possible outcome within the next two years could be a ceasefire agreement. According to media reports, Trump’s advisors are considering a plan where Ukraine renounces its NATO aspirations and agrees to an immediate ceasefire along current frontlines. In a second step, peace negotiations could follow—but these could drag on for years. Such forced negotiations would be risky for Ukraine. Zelensky would face a difficult choice: continue fighting without U.S. support or accept an imperfect peace. Since a complete victory without U.S. backing is hardly realistic, Kyiv might reluctantly engage in talks—though likely only after coordinating its minimum conditions with European partners.

Europe’s stance in the near future will likely be the exact opposite of Trump’s course. The EU and individual European countries are expected to maintain or even increase their support to send a signal of reliability. As St. Gallen conflict researcher Ulrich Schmid predicts, Europe will now “increase its Ukraine aid”, precisely because it recognizes that a Russian victory would have unforeseeable consequences. Specifically, more European tanks, artillery, ammunition, and financial support can be expected in 2024 and 2025. Arms production will ramp up, boosted by EU funding. Politically, Europe will attempt to present a united front: after Trump’s outburst, all key European leaders demonstratively backed Zelensky—from Emmanuel Macron to Olaf Scholz to Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk. This unity is likely to continue as long as the shock over Trump’s actions remains fresh. However, Europe will simultaneously keep channels open to Washington, attempting to exert influence—either through Congress or public opinion. The EU might strengthen its cooperation with moderate Republicans and Democrats to preserve some level of U.S. aid for Ukraine. Should Trump face domestic pressure (from scandals or the 2026 elections), opportunities for policy shifts could emerge.

Medium- to long-term (in the coming years): If the war drags on, two broad scenarios emerge:

1. Freezing the conflict and reduced Western support: In this scenario, Trump successfully reduces U.S. aid to a minimum, and European solidarity gradually diminishes (due to public fatigue, economic costs, or shifts toward pro-Russian right-wing populist governments in some countries). The frontlines stabilize without significant advances on either side—a stalemate. Ukraine becomes economically dependent on the EU, which provides just enough assistance to prevent total collapse. Russia retains control over occupied territories, and a peace agreement remains elusive. This situation could persist for years, similar to the frozen conflict in eastern Ukraine from 2015 to 2022, only on a larger scale. While painful for Ukraine, it would survive as a state and could prepare for a long-term war of attrition. Meanwhile, Europe would have to deal with a “frozen conflict” on its periphery, bearing the costs. Security experts warn that such an unstable “peace order” remains highly volatile, with Russia possibly escalating again whenever an opportunity arises. Additionally, the transatlantic alliance would be weakened: political scientist Thomas Greven even argues that under Trump, the U.S. is “temporarily lost to the Western alliance”, meaning that Europe could no longer rely on Washington and would have to pursue greater strategic autonomy.
2. Realignment and renewed transatlantic cooperation: A shift in Washington remains possible. Domestic U.S. politics could play a crucial role—if Trump’s Ukraine policy faces growing criticism from moderate Republicans or the broader public. Should people realize that a Russian triumph ultimately threatens American interests, the political pressure to maintain aid could increase. Even Trump administration figures like Senator Marco Rubio have acknowledged that only the U.S. can bring the warring parties to the negotiating table. This suggests an awareness that America’s global leadership role is at stake. Some Republicans in the Senate may not support Trump’s hardline stance in the long run. If Ukraine manages military successes despite reduced support—through smart tactics or new weaponry—even skeptics in the U.S. might recognize the value of continued aid. Moreover, the 2028 U.S. presidential election looms on the horizon. A policy shift at that point could completely change the situation. Europe, for its part, will likely keep the door open for a U.S. return to leadership, hoping that America will re-engage in Ukraine after Trump. In this scenario, Ukraine would endure the difficult Trump years with European support, and by 2029 (or sooner, if Trump’s policy fails), a new consensus could emerge to push back against Russia decisively.

Expert Assessments

Many analysts emphasize how difficult it is to predict the course of events, as much depends on political decisions. What is clear, however, is that quick solutions are unrealistic. Trump’s claim that he could end the war in 24 hours is widely regarded as a populist promise—as the Lowy Institute in Australia put it: “Quick solutions to the protracted conflict will prove elusive”. Any peace agreement must account for complex realities: Ukraine’s sovereignty, Russia’s security claims, reconstruction efforts, and justice for war crimes. A simplistic “land-for-peace” deal, as Trump has hinted at, could freeze the conflict but would not bring lasting peace, European politicians warn. One EU lawmaker even described such a U.S. proposal as a “gift from Trump to Putin” that undermines Western principles. At the same time, there is a consensus that the war cannot continue indefinitely at the same intensity without exhausting Ukraine. Thus, some analysts expect a negotiated settlement in phases: first a ceasefire, then lengthy negotiations on political solutions, during which Ukraine would receive gradual reconstruction support but remain militarily vigilant.

What This Means for Europe

Regardless of which scenario unfolds, Europe must redefine its strategic role. The EU is already discussing long-term security guarantees for Ukraine—such as a stronger military partnership or even a European defense pact, should NATO membership remain blocked. Additionally, Europe will likely intensify defense cooperation to respond more quickly and effectively to future crises. The idea of greater European strategic autonomy is gaining traction: if the U.S. partially withdraws as a security provider, Europe must be able to act independently. This means joint arms projects, increased defense spending, and even the possibility of a European defense union. In the short term, maintaining unity and resisting nationalist divisions will be crucial—as Putin is betting on Western democracies growing tired. So far, Europe has rejected this notion: The response to Trump’s outburst was unanimously pro-Ukraine. If this stance holds, Ukraine stands a strong chance of withstanding the next few years.

Conclusion

In the coming years, much will depend on the political course in Washington and European capitals. In the worst case, experts foresee a weakened West conceding part of Ukraine to Russia, creating new long-term dangers. In the best case, Europe and other allies close the gap left by the U.S., sustaining Ukraine until America re-engages, ultimately preserving Ukrainian sovereignty. The most realistic scenario likely falls somewhere in between: a delicate balancing act of military aid, limited negotiations, and an attempt to avoid both abandoning Ukraine and risking a broader war. Trump’s return has reshuffled the deck and increased uncertainty, but at the same time, Europe has shown determination not to let Ukraine fall—even if it means improvising and adapting strategies. As EU Council President Charles Michel stated, this is about “nothing less than the credibility and values of the West.”

Ultimately, Ukraine policy in the coming years will serve as a test of transatlantic partnership and Europe’s ability to take responsibility. Whether Ukraine wins, freezes the conflict, or loses territory depends largely on how the U.S. and Europe adjust their coordination. Despite current tensions, one can still hope that a solution emerges that provides Ukraine with a just and lasting peace—without sacrificing the fundamental principles of freedom and self-determination.