Europe in the Trump-Putin dilemma: Where is the continent heading after the US's departure?

Brussels. With charm and tactical skill in his luggage, French President Emmanuel Macron traveled to Washington to defuse the new tensions between the USA and Europe. In a good mood, the Frenchman sat in the Oval Office next to US President Donald Trump and relied on his tried and tested tactic: "We are personal friends," Macron explained with a meaningful grin and a sideways glance at Trump. He had come to Washington as a friend.

In the White House, the self-proclaimed Trump whisperer from Paris tried to grab the former showmaster by his vanity - and to settle big politics "among friends". A conversation between men who are not allowed to show any weakness on the world stage. Not against Russia, not against China. Is Macron Europe's new middleman in the Oval Office?

Only a few months earlier, Trump and his wife had enjoyed the Macrons' hospitality in France. The Republican still raves about his visit to the restored Notre Dame and the exclusive dinner with the Frenchman. He has a "very special relationship with France and with this gentleman on his right," the US president raved about Macron this week.

Solemn date: Donald Trump (centre) comes to Paris at the end of last year for the opening of Notre-Dame.

Source: IMAGO/ABACAPRESS

Macron took advantage of this moment and dared to strongly contradict Trump when he claimed that Europe had only given Ukraine loans. The Frenchman gently placed his hand on the US president's wrist and corrected him: "No, to be honest, we paid for everything." 60 percent of all aid came from Europe. For a moment, Trump seemed downright stunned.

But Macron is not the only one with a ticket to Washington. Top European politicians are lining up to meet at the moment. In just a few weeks, Trump has shaken the decades-long alliance between the USA and Europe. Ukraine is now even in danger of losing essential US aid in the fight for survival. Trump is pushing for a quick deal with Putin - with significant concessions from Kiev.

The negotiations with Putin directly affect Europe's security. The Kremlin chief not only wants to conquer Ukrainian territory, but also to reorganize the entire European security architecture, warns Estonia's Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna in an interview with RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland (RND). "Putin wants to end NATO's presence in the region, but it is of fundamental importance for our security."

Looking at the meeting between Trump and Putin with concern: Estonia's Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna.

Source: picture alliance / ZUMAPRESS.com | Attila Huseynov

The foreign minister fears that Trump will free the Russian ruler from the West's isolation and rehabilitate him. "Trump does not seem to take the crimes that Putin committed in Ukraine very seriously," said Tsahkna. Europe must not allow Trump to rewrite history in the course of a quick deal. He is concerned about the announced meeting between Trump and Putin, at which "two presidents will negotiate on equal terms." In his view, this is a serious mistake. But everything indicates that Russia is finding its way back onto the big stage as a major power.

In the EU, there are increasing voices warning that Trump, Putin and Xi could divide the world between themselves. What is Europe's place in the new world order? "Europe does not play in the same league as the major powers like the USA, China and Russia, but can rather be an influential middle power like Saudi Arabia, India or Turkey," says EU defense policy expert Gesine Weber from the German Marshall Fund (GMF).

But it is about much more than political power games. It is up in the air whether US troops, American weapons systems and the US nuclear umbrella will continue to guarantee Europe's security. Trump has sown doubts as to whether the USA would still defend its NATO allies in an emergency. "The foundation of European security is already crumbling," warns Weber. One consequence of Trump's rapprochement with Russia: The USA is already rethinking its troop deployment, and a partial withdrawal could be imminent. The question now is: can and does Europe want to take its deterrence into its own hands?

Behind the scenes, the EU institutions are already playing out scenarios to see whether Europe can even implement an independent security policy. The best scenario in Brussels is that the USA will only withdraw some of its ground troops, but the nuclear umbrella will remain. The worst scenario? A defenseless Europe against a highly armed nuclear power, Russia, which could also be blackmailed by Moscow with nuclear weapons. And no one is categorically ruling out this scenario anymore.

At present, Europeans are still refusing to think about their own defense not with less of the USA, but without the USA altogether, says security expert Weber. A paradigm shift is needed in people's minds. But one thing is clear: "Whether it's a peacekeeping force or security guarantees, real deterrence is not possible in the short term without the USA." Europe could think about nuclear defense in European terms and include French and British nuclear weapons in its strategy. But their effect would be far less than that of US nuclear weapons, as they are aimed at strategic goals rather than comprehensive deterrence. "This means a large part of Europe's deterrence capability is lost," says Weber.

The prospect of being left largely without American support in a few months is not just speculation. "One cannot assume that the US presence will last forever," US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth warned unequivocally on the sidelines of his visit to Europe.

The consequences would be enormous - and expensive: If Europe has to defend itself against Russia without the support of the USA, it would cost investments of around 250 billion euros annually, according to an analysis by the Brussels think tank Bruegel and the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel). 50 additional brigades with a total of 300,000 soldiers would be needed, as well as 1,400 new battle tanks and 2,000 armored personnel carriers. "Economically, this is relatively manageable compared to the economic strength of the EU, the additional costs are only around 1.5 percent of the EU's gross domestic product," says Guntram Wolff of the IfW Kiel. Far less than, for example, for crisis management during the Covid pandemic.

The authors of the study propose increasing European defense spending from the current 2 percent to 3.5 to 4 percent of economic output annually. This would make a total of an additional 250 billion euros possible per year. However, recruiting and training 300,000 additional soldiers seems hardly feasible.

The European Union is perplexed by the speed and unilateral action with which Donald Trump is reshaping Europe's security architecture - without consulting those affected. Diplomats are wondering whether the USA is even pursuing a well-thought-out strategy for Ukraine - let alone for Europe. The contradictory signals from Washington are being watched nervously. No one knows what they can really rely on. High-ranking diplomats complain that the messages from Trump's hand-picked ministers and special advisers seem chaotic and often uncoordinated. Some actors are even being referred to behind closed doors as "incompetent".

It also remains unclear whose advice Trump will ultimately listen to. The Europeans had to learn this lesson the hard way during his first term in office: agreements with his advisers often had a short half-life because the president simply abandoned them later.

That is why the Europeans want to negotiate directly with the new dealmaker in the White House - but who is forging the deals for Europe? French President Emmanuel Macron would be only too happy to take on this role. As a staunch supporter of European strategic autonomy, he is pushing for a stronger role for Europeans in security issues. In his zeal, he called two summits at short notice - one for the large and one for the smaller EU states - to rally the heads of government behind him. But he was not given a mandate to negotiate with the US President.

Best relations: At the beginning of January, Trump received Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

Source: IMAGO/ZUMA Press

Instead, the two meetings sparked frustration and conflict and ended in disaster without any tangible results. Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis was furious because he felt he had been ignored at the first meeting of the "big" countries. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, on the other hand, was angry with Macron because she sees herself as Trump's natural contact person. "He stole the show from her," say EU circles.

Macron is used to the headwind. He has been criticized time and again for his demand that Europe should become more independent from the USA. But now he sees his views vindicated. "Today, Europeans agree that Macron was right. Macron now sees himself as a legitimate negotiating partner with Trump," says GMF expert Weber. She points out that Trump already knows Macron from his first term in office. "And Trump loves a style of politics in which men negotiate among themselves," she adds.

Now the EU states are making a new attempt: At an official special summit on March 6, EU Council President Antonio Costa wants to agree on a common line and concrete results for dealing with the US peace negotiations and Europe's role. Initial preparations are already underway: On Wednesday, Costa scheduled a short-notice video conference with all EU states so that Macron can provide confidential insights into his conversation with Trump. One suggestion is on the table: Europe could appoint a special envoy for Ukraine to negotiate on behalf of Trump's team. Representatives from outside the EU, such as British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, are also to be brought on board.

Starmer will meet Trump this Thursday and wants to persuade him of extensive US protection guarantees for Ukraine convince. For the Europeans, one thing is clear: without military support from the USA, Ukraine may face another attack from Russia. The only question that remains is whether Trump can be convinced.