For years, European governments have promised to get serious about taking responsibility for their own defense.  But only now, less than two months into a second Trump administration, has the realization begun to sink in that America may no longer be ready and willing to come to Europe’s rescue.  The prospect that the entire postwar security order could collapse from a radical shift in American strategy toward Russia, Ukraine and NATO has sent European leaders scrambling to salvage the fate of the Atlantic alliance.

     President Trump’s decision to arrange direct talks with the Russians to secure a peace deal as the war in Ukraine enters its fourth year left its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and European allies angry and stunned at being excluded from the negotiations.  Having recovered from their humiliation, they have begun coordinating urgent diplomacy to broker a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine and circumvent the Trump administration’s quest for a bilateral peace deal with Moscow over the heads of Europe and Ukraine.

     The latest catalyst came two days after an explosive argument in the Oval Office in which Trump accused Zelensky of lacking gratitude for American assistance and “gambling with World War Three” by refusing to embrace an American plan that Ukraine fears would be tantamount to surrender. Meeting in London’s historic Lancaster House, British prime minister Keir Starmer convened nineteen leaders, including Zelensky, to hammer out a European peace initiative that would keep military aid flowing to Ukraine and assign peacekeeping forces to monitor a potential ceasefire.

      Starmer and French president Emmanuel Macron vowed to lead “a coalition of the willing” to secure an eventual peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia.  Starmer said Europe would “do the heavy lifting” in terms of boots on the ground and planes in the air but insisted on strong American backing.  In separate visits to Washington before the Zelensky fracas, Starmer and Macron fell short of winning Trump’s endorsement for the United States to backstop the Europeans.

     Before their meeting collapsed in acrimony, Trump hoped to sign a deal with Zelensky that would enable the United States to extract rare earths and other valuable minerals in Ukraine, ostensibly to repay American assistance since the start of the war. Zelensky and the Europeans claim American security guarantees are necessary to prevent Russia from breaking a ceasefire and launching future attacks, but Trump contends the mere presence of American workers on the ground in Ukraine would be sufficient to deter further Russian aggression.

      The London conference was intended to demonstrate European solidarity for Ukraine, but it also revealed striking differences of opinion. Several leaders refused to pledge troops or further aid, and Starmer expressed disappointment with their lack of ambition.  “I feel very strongly that unless some move forward we will stay in the same position we are in,” he said. “This is not a moment for more talk. It’s a time to act, to step up and lead.”

      Macron proposed an initial one-month truce, but his suggestion quickly met with skepticism. Zelensky warned any short pause in the war must not allow time for the Russians to regroup and reinvade.  Other leaders, including NATO secretary general Mark Rutte, said the most important action now is for Zelensky to repair his relations with the White House, since the road to peace will have to run through Washington.

     The disarray among European leaders showed they are still not ready to fulfill repeated pledges to take responsibility for the security of their continent.  Any major European defense effort will require hundreds of billions of euros in new investment, which may involve unpopular decisions to curtail spending on social welfare that could lead to incumbent politicians being voted out of office.

     Nonetheless, the growing sentiment that the Trump administration is pulling back from eight decades of American commitments as Europe’s security umbrella is awakening many governments to the need to seize control of their own destiny. Macron has long advocated greater strategic autonomy for Europe and encouraged Starmer to play a stronger role in defending continental security interests even though Britain has no plans to rejoin the European Union.

      Macron is optimistic that he will soon gain a new partner in Friedrich Merz, Germany’s likely next chancellor.  They met for dinner in Paris just after Macron returned from Washington to ponder ways to revive a French-German partnership that has withered in recent years. Although a lifelong transatlanticist, Merz declared after the election that as chancellor “my absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that step by step we can really achieve independence from the United States of America.” 

      Merz noted this strategic change for Germany is imperative because the Trump 2.0 administration has shown it is “largely indifferent to the fate of Europe.”  Merz wants to explore ways that France and Britain might be able to extend their nuclear deterrent to cover other parts of the European continent and thus provide a future nuclear security umbrella that in the past has been a cornerstone of America’s defense of Europe.

     Yet despite their intentions to achieve greater self-reliance, European governments still find it hard to break their historic reflex to look toward Washington as the ultimate guarantor of their security. As the United States focuses on China and other challenges around the world, it will become more difficult to command America’s attention.  The solution may lie in Europe making the sacrifices required to become the kind of strategic partner that America will need in the future.