The decision to stop US military aid to Ukraine may well turn out to be the most consequential of all of the executive orders Donald Trump has signed since he took office.
Brave as the Ukrainian forces and civilians have been, and supportive as the European and Nato allies have tried to be, the loss of American hardware and intelligence will inevitably hurt Ukrainian morale and its ability to defend its present territory, let alone counterattack and push the Russians back.
Indeed, unless the European and other allies in the broad “coalition of the willing” – including Canada and, potentially, Turkey – swiftly plug the huge gaps left by the American retreat from its obligations, then the very existence of Ukraine as an independent state falls into jeopardy.
Some vital missiles may run out in a matter of days, and the danger is that the present war of attrition turns into a rout as the weather improves. Does Europe and the West more generally – even including America – wish to see in, say, a year’s time Vladimir Putin enjoying a victory parade in Kyiv? Is that a price worth paying for peace?
Volodymyr Zelensky clearly recognises the dangers, and his latest social media posting commits him to peace, places much trust in the hands of Mr Trump, and advertises how keen he is to sign up to the minerals deal – but not unconditionally: "We see this agreement as a step toward greater security and solid security guarantees". Skilfully phrased, it might just be sufficient for the White House to accept, especially when it is so clear that Mr Trump desperately wants a quick deal. But there are diehard sceptics in the White House who behave as if Ukraine is the aggressor, Russia the victim, and the Europeans the cowardly traitors.
The American vice-president, JD Vance, suggests that European leaders “speak with forked tongue”, as it were – publicly defiant towards the Kremlin but in their conversations with the White House, privately defeatist. He may be, not for the first time, being provocative but his gratuitous disrespect to the British and other war dead in conflicts in the Gulf, in Afghanistan – after 9/11 – and Iraq is certainly nothing less than a vile insult.
Evidently, he holds historic allies of America, large and small, whose warriors mingled blood on the battlefields of the world, in the same contempt he holds Ukraine. He is on recent record saying the UK will be the world's “first truly Islamist” nation to possess nuclear weapons. He is making Britain's friendship with America more difficult and seems not to mind.
What we do know is that the leaders assembled at the London security summit have solemnly pledged to stand by Ukraine if needs be – and are acting accordingly. It is now an emergency and an existential one.
For her part, president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, on behalf of the European Union, has a plan to raise €800bn from the EU budget to fund rearmament – actually, about the size of the annual US defence budget. That is no puny response.
So Europe, broadly, has the financial resources to face down Russia – but is the industrial capacity and the political willpower there as well? Or, more pertinently, are they going to be brought to bear in the short space of time available to prevent the Russians from overcoming Ukrainian defences? There are some doubts about both.
As with its overall military capability, Europe’s defence industries have been run down correspondingly in recent decades and would have to be placed on a war footing in order to scale production of the equipment Ukraine needs. As for the political determination, while it is true that within the European Union there are neutral and pro-Russian countries who will be reluctant to contribute, there is nonetheless a very wide and very committed community of nations, inside and outside the EU and beyond Europe, who will be ready to make the effort.
The stark truth is that many nations in central and eastern Europe, close to Ukraine and bordering Russia itself, know full well that they are on the front line, that America is becoming an unreliable ally, and that it would be a shock – but no longer any great surprise – if Donald Trump decided to withdraw US forces from parts of Europe.
Complete, forced capitulation by Ukraine is an outcome that now needs to be faced – and prevented at all costs. The immediate task for the “coalition of the willing” is to step up supplies of military and financial aid to Ukraine, recruit help from partners across the world, intensify sanctions on Russia, and put Ukraine in the best possible negotiating position for when the time comes for peace talks.
Volodymyr Zelensky should not be coerced into agreeing to a ceasefire with no future security guarantees, nor should he be forced to sign a “minerals deal” with America, which in no way guarantees what remains of Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
Where this will all leave the Atlantic alliance and Nato is deeply troubling.
At best, President Zelensky will return to the White House, agree to the Trump plan, and the US president will persuade President Putin to return much of his Ukraine’s lost territories. For the future, the minerals deal will, in an optimistic scenario, be mutually advantageous and add a vital American interest to the equation, and a European-backed security guarantee will prove sufficient to deter the Kremlin from a third invasion.
At worst, the Russians will simply take the cessation of US support to Ukraine to continue the fighting and make further gains. Should President Trump relax sanctions on Russia and normalise relations, as he plainly would like to, then a ghastly prospect hoves into view; of the Europeans funding the Ukrainians to fight against a Russian war machine greatly helped by renewed American trade and investment in President Putin’s regime.
In such circumstances many will wonder what is the point of the Atlantic Alliance, sharing mutual obligations, equipment, forces, nuclear technology and intelligence – but no longer fundamental values and interests, no longer fighting on the same side. That is for the future, though.
For now, Europe’s duty to Ukraine is clear. As Winston Churchill put it, it is to give them the tools to finish the job. Stabilising the military situation and gradually giving President Zelensky the technological edge will help to deliver Ukraine the peace it needs and deserves – a durable peace with honour, guaranteed by faithful allies. Surrender to Vladimir Putin is not an option.
