To some, the row of European leaders who faced President Trump in the White House last week looked like nothing so much as schoolchildren called to the principal’s office.
But consider Mr. Trump’s view across the Resolute Desk: a united group of European leaders. The collective visit to Washington, seen from this other angle, might look more like a flash of diplomatic inspiration.
Europe has found its formula for dealing with Mr. Trump on Ukraine: First, flatter. Praise his strength, his commitment to peace and his capacities as a deal maker. Second, try, in increments, to turn him against Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin — something that Mr. Putin, despite his best efforts, seems unable to do himself.
Last week this strategy worked again. When Mr. Trump’s meeting with Mr. Putin in Alaska a few days earlier looked as if it might derail everything they’ve worked toward, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and the leaders of Britain, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, NATO and the European Commission rushed to Washington to drag the conversation away from territorial concessions and back toward security guarantees. The resulting meeting, by all accounts, was cordial and friendly, and Ukraine was granted another reprieve.
Europeans have discovered that, when it comes to managing Mr. Trump, they can quickly get on the same page and agree on what needs to be done. This is progress. The trouble is that they are expending vast amounts of energy just to keep everything in almost the same place. The next step is to take that newfound unity and translate it into a position of strength from which they can guide negotiations and support Ukraine on the battlefield.
It is always striking to see the European Union — one of the world’s largest economies and largest single market, with substantial political influence and the tangible potential to become a military power — being content to follow, rather than to lead. There seem to be two reasons for this: the learned habit of deferring to America and the reality that being a union does not necessarily mean being united, even on fundamental issues.
On Ukraine, Europe has spent the year reacting to an American president who has shown himself willing to criticize Russia’s actions, but who — at least so far — has been unwilling to make tough decisions to counter those actions. His diplomacy in Alaska and Washington merely moved pieces in circles around the game board, creating a temporary impression of energy and momentum. By the time he was done, it was clear to anyone paying attention that everything was back where it had started.
But when it comes to European unity, Mr. Trump has made a real difference. While he certainly deserves credit for insisting that European countries contribute more toward their own defense, he has also, perhaps inadvertently, helped European leaders to focus on what they can agree on, rather than what separates them.
Consider again the events of last week. For the first time, Ukraine led a united European delegation to the United States. In effect, there were two hosts in Washington: Mr. Zelensky, who welcomed several of his European colleagues to the Ukrainian Embassy, and then Mr. Trump, who received them at the White House, where they assembled alongside Mr. Zelensky, who drew strength from their presence. (Poland was the only notable absence.)
That a new distance separates the United States and Europe is inescapable. The announcements after the meeting may have made it sound as if Europe and America had struck some important agreement, but the tone cooled once everyone returned home. What had at first been portrayed as a reunion of committed partners was, in reality, more like a polite encounter between estranged spouses — formally separated, if not yet divorced. And Europeans seem to be finally accepting that in this new reality, they must rely on one another.
Of course, there’s nothing like a crisis to focus the mind. If a cease-fire — or even the formal end of the war — is announced (whatever that looks like on the ground), there’s a real risk that the resolve of Ukraine’s European allies will soften, and their unity splinter. It is easy to imagine them getting bogged down in debates over how to support Kyiv without provoking Russia or disrupting a fragile peace arrangement.
Europe’s trauma from its continental wars and, most notably, two world wars has taught Europeans that changing borders by force leads only to more violence. It runs deep enough that Mr. Zelensky can count on his European partners to stand firm on the issue of territorial integrity.
He may be less confident in their ability to deliver on other commitments they have undertaken. For example: producing and delivering more weapons, investing more in Ukraine’s defense industry and advancing Ukraine’s path to membership in the European Union.
Europe could be in a far stronger position today if it had overcome Hungary’s veto on Ukraine’s accession to the union, if the ramp-up of military production on the continent were faster and more evenly spread across the bloc and if many, many months of work on security guarantees had not concluded with the announcement that the work would continue.
Europe’s inability to act in unison is its perennial weakness and its path to defeat, including on Ukraine. But if it can pull together — and remain together — Mr. Putin will not prevail.
Dmytro Kuleba was the foreign minister of Ukraine between 2020 and 2024. He is a senior fellow at the Harvard Belfer Center.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post Europe Has Found Its Formula for Managing Trump appeared first on New York Times.
