The new enemy?

A week of intense diplomatic maneuvering has thrown Ukraine’s future (and the global balance of power) into uncertainty. High-level meetings across the globe have exposed deep fractures in international alliances, raising fundamental questions about the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy and the resilience of the Western order.

On February 17, European leaders convened in Paris for an emergency summit. The gathering, attended by representatives from Germany, Britain, Italy, Poland, Spain, Denmark, the European Union, and NATO, was a direct response to the United States’ decision to exclude European nations from critical peace talks with Russia. In Brussels, Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly met with EU officials, reaffirming support for Ukraine and broader strategic cooperation.

Simultaneously, on February 18, senior U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, met with their Russian counterparts in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. This four-hour meeting, which notably excluded Ukraine and European representatives, focused on improving U.S.-Russia relations and negotiating an end to the Ukraine conflict. Just before the meeting, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth made it clear: Ukraine’s NATO membership was off the table. At the Munich Security Conference, Vice President J.D. Vance added fuel to the fire, arguing that the real threat to European values wasn’t Russia or China, but internal divisions within the West itself.

Then came the most astonishing moment. In a series of remarks that seemed to echo Russian disinformation, President Trump openly lied and criticized Ukraine for objecting to its exclusion from the Saudi negotiations. His message was blunt: “You should have never started it. You could have made a deal.” His words, coupled with his administration’s actions, have triggered alarm bells across European capitals, where officials now question whether Washington is quietly realigning its foreign policy toward Moscow.

These developments present two possible interpretations of the current situation:

Trump: The New Enemy?

One interpretation is that Trump is deliberately undermining the Western alliance, potentially aligning more closely with Russia. His administration’s rhetoric and diplomatic choices suggest a dramatic departure from America’s traditional role as a leader of the Western bloc and an essential part of European security. Rubio’s comment about the "incredible opportunity to partner with Russia geopolitically and economically" speaks to a fundamental shift in thinking.

Excluding European allies from peace talks and sidelining Ukraine in discussions about its own future signals a retreat from the postwar order that has defined American foreign policy for decades. Trump's remarks blaming Ukraine for the war and his administration’s push to secure access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals in exchange for military aid further reinforce the perception that U.S. support is now purely transactional. Washington can no longer be trusted; it now positions itself as an unreliable partner and even a potential adversary.

Trump: The Deal Maker?

There is another possibility. Perhaps this is simply Trump being Trump, approaching geopolitics as he would a business deal. His insistence on negotiating directly with Russia, his fixation on Ukraine’s natural resources, and his attempt to force Kyiv into political concessions could be viewed as an effort to end the war on terms he considers economically favorable to the U.S.

But at what cost? His suggestion that parts of Ukraine “may be Russian someday,” his misleading claim that President Zelenskyy’s approval rating has dropped to 4% (when in reality it remains around 54%), and his push for wartime elections (despite 67% of Ukrainians opposing them) all hint at an attempt to install a more “manageable” government in Kyiv for U.S. but, more importantly, for Russia. If Trump is willing to broker peace by forcing Ukraine to surrender territory, what signal does that send to other nations facing Russian aggression?

Regardless of which interpretation proves true, one thing is clear: U.S. foreign policy is undergoing a profound transformation. By excluding Ukraine from decisions about its own survival, sidelining European allies, and prioritizing transactional diplomacy, Washington is reshaping global power dynamics, pointing to a new era in international relations.

Europe, increasingly aware of its precarious position, is exploring its own defense strategies. Discussions of an independent European peacekeeping force in Ukraine are gaining traction. Yet, France, the UK, Germany, Poland, and the Baltic states each have different visions for how to protect themselves without American leadership.

In the meantime, if Ukraine is forced by U.S. to accept a peace deal where they have to surrender 20% of its territory, the consequences will extend far beyond Kyiv, it might be perceived as a lack of Western resolve. Russia’s goals might extend beyond Ukraine, potentially emboldening Moscow to challenge other European nations (Moldova, the Baltic States, or other Central or Eastern countries.

The implications of this shift could reshape the international order for years to come. If U.S. commitments to NATO weaken or if Washington signals that European security is no longer its priority, traditional allies may soon find themselves navigating an unpredictable world alone, not just against Russia and China but potentially against an unpredictable United States that no longer shares their interests.

The real question now is not just about Ukraine. It is about the fragility of the Western alliance itself. Is NATO still part of Trump’s vision, or are we witnessing the unraveling of the Atlantic order?

As these geopolitical tremors unfold, professionals across industries, from international business to global security, must remain agile. The global landscape is shifting. The question is: Who will adapt, and who will be left behind?

X: solange_