Brussels, my love? Trump's power play with Zelenskyy
In this week's edition of our weekly talk show, participants discuss the dramatic shake-up regarding Ukraine diplomacy
ADVERTISEMENT
What happened at the White House didn't stay at the White House. The made-for-tv clash between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy left America's allies in Europe stunned. Never before has there been such a public display of disdain and distrust between allies and partners. The minerals deal that was supposed to be signed in Washington, is now up in the air - as is the future commitment of the United States to supporting Ukraine.
The disaster in the Oval Office left European leaders scrambling for answers. One option is a massive ramp-up of military spending to support Ukraine and defend Europe alone - in case Trump and Elon Musk decide to unceremoniously withdraw U.S. troops from the continent. To fill this void, the British prime minister even suggested a 'coalition of the willing' to protect Ukraine and a peace agreement with Russia that may or may not come. Where is all this going?
The perfect question for our guests this week: Shada Islam, independent analyst and commentator on European affairs from Belgium, Ville Niinistö, Member of the European Parliament for the Greens from Finland and Giuseppe Spatafora, research analyst at the EU Institute for Security Studies.
Europe may well be on its own when it comes to supporting Ukraine in the future. However, the participants at the London summit proved to Trump that they, too, can create facts that will influence the final settlement of the war.
First: more military support for Ukraine. Second, no demilitarization of Ukraine after the end of the conflict. And third, security guarantees from European forces behind Ukrainian lines. Can such a concept work and could it impress Trump?
The Trump administration is currently taking a turn that will shock many by focusing entirely on direct negotiations with Moscow and hinting at peace strategies that are entirely to Russia's liking. A reorientation that is not totally surprising given Trump's admiration for authoritarian rulers such as Putin.
Are we witnessing the creation of a new geopolitical reality here? Is Trump taking a domestic political risk with this realignment?
This episode was recorded on 5 March ahead of the European Council summit in Brussels.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
41 minutes ago
- Euronews
Defence up to 5% GDP, Ukraine, Russia: Key takeaways from NATO summit
NATO leaders on Wednesday confirmed their commitment to more than double defence spending by 2035 banding words like "crucial", "momentous" and "quantum leap", but the summit also exposed rifts over how the US and Europe perceive Ukraine and Russia. Allies committed to spending 3.5% of GDP on core defence spending to buy military hardware and maintain troops and another 1.5% on defence-related investments. This includes dual-purpose investments that would boost military mobility, cybersecurity, military and civilian cooperation and resilience on critical infrastructure. US President Donald Trump, who had long called for a 5% target, crowed victory, lauding how "over a trillion (US dollars) a year" will now be spent on defence from Europe and Canada. The declaration that emerged from the summit is much shorter than the statements that have come out of previous meetings and paints the picture of a united alliance but not all is as it seems. Here's what you need to know. Different interpretations of 5% "Allies commit to invest 5% of GDP annually on core defence requirements as well as defence-and security-related spending by 2035 to ensure our individual and collective obligations, in accordance with Article 3 of the Washington Treaty," the NATO declaration says. But some allies seem to have a different interpretation. Spain and Slovakia for instance, have indicated they don't plan to raise their national defence budget for now, arguing they can reach their national capability targets by spending less. Prime Minister Sánchez stressed to reporters after the summit that Spain is "firmly committed to our capacity objectives" and "a serious country that fulfills its commitments". Rutte more or less cast doubts on them being able to do so, telling reporters at the end of the summit that the targets were calculated based on the defence planning process during which the capability targets for each country, and estimates of what it would cost to reach them, were set. Bart De Wever, Belgium's prime minister, also expressed his scepticism, telling reporters on Wednesday morning before the summit that "if we can do it (reach the capability targets with less than 3.5% of GDP), we will try to do it as well." "But NATO is not foolish. If they say it's going to be 3.5% to get it done, it's probably true," he added. Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said that the targets "should be binding and they should be for all 32 members of the alliance". For Trump, Spain's stance is "terrible", adding: "I don't know what the problem is." He said that he is "going to make them pay twice as much" in other ways. Allies have agreed to review progress on their spending trajectory in 2029 and possibly set new capability targets depending on the geopolitical situation. Trump's commitment to Article 5 Article 5 of NATO's founding treaty is the collective defence clause which states that an attack on one ally is an attack against them all. Trump has since his reelection castigated European allies for not spending enough on their own defence and suggested the US could choose not to assist an ally under attack if their spending is low. When asked, as he was flying to the Hague for the summit, whether he remained committed, Trump told reporters: "It depends on your definition. There's numerous definitions of Article 5." "But I'm committed to being their friends (...) and I'm committed to helping them". In their summit declaration, all 32 allies, including the US, "reaffirm our ironclad commitment to collective defence as enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty – that an attack on one is an attack on all." Rutte and most European leaders have in public said they have no doubt about Washington's commitment to European security with the secretary-general saying the US "reaffirmed that today in no uncertain terms". Ukraine watered down For Rutte, one of the "resounding" messages that emerged from the summit was that of the alliance's "continued support" for Ukraine. "Our aim is to keep Ukraine in the fight today so that it can enjoy a lasting peace in the future," he said, also reiterating that the war-torn country is on "an "irreversible path to NATO". This formula was introduced in the declaration that came out of the 2024 summit in Washington, in which the word Ukraine appeared roughly 60 times. Allies also stated then that a strong, independent, and democratic Ukraine "is vital for the security and stability of the Euro-Atlantic area", and "directly contributes to Euro-Atlantic security". However, In this year's declaration, the word Ukraine is mentioned just twice: "Allies reaffirm their enduring sovereign commitments to provide support to Ukraine, whose security contributes to ours, and, to this end, will include direct contributions towards Ukraine's defence and its defence industry when calculating Allies' defence spending." Sources from NATO allied countries told Euronews they were confident of strong language linking Ukrainian security to NATO security. This was an area of some discussion in recent weeks as to the strength and relevance of Ukraine in the overall final statement. In the weeks and months leading up to the summit there was even some talk as to whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy would be invited to the leaders' dinner hosted by Dutch King and Queen. Not inviting Zelenskyy would have been "a PR disaster", another source told Euronews. Yet allies – aside from the US - are at pains to explain that the journey towards Ukraine's membership of NATO has not ended abruptly, but only slowed down. "There will be a path to NATO membership for Ukraine, but of course once more when conditions allow and when allies agree," Latvian Defence minister Andris Sprūds said. "At the moment, allies don't agree on that specific decision right now, but I am sure and I'm confident that sooner or later this decision will be taken with regard to NATO and also with regard to European Union," he told Euronews at the Hague. Sprūds pointed to the deliberately narrow focus on spending at the summit as one reason for the pivot away from Ukraine. "This is about spending, it is about NATO capabilities.. so by this indirectly or directly we can interpret it, it also underlines the importance of Ukraine," he said. Zelenskyy did have a meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the summit with Trump later describing him as "very nice" and saying he "couldn't have been nicer". The two men had a highly contentious meeting in the Oval Office in February. "He'd like to see it (the war) ended," Trump also said. "I'm going to speak to Vladimir Putin, see if we can get it ended." Russia gets just one mention US intervention is also behind how brief the mention of Russia is in the declaration, sources have told Euronews. The document states that allies are "united in the face of profound security threats and challenges, in particular the long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security". Asked about his contacts with Putin, Trump told reporters that "he'd like to settle" his war in Ukraine but and that "it's possible" he could have designs on other European territories. "I consider him a person that I think has been misguided," Trump added. Non-US sources close to the negotiations had previously said on conditions of anonymity that they were not displeased with the language on Russia and the fact it is the only other country mentioned. This, they said, showed NATO is returning to its so-called "core business". The US had in previous years insisted that the Indo-Pacific and China be mentioned.
France 24
42 minutes ago
- France 24
Mark Rutte's address at NATO summit
06:08 25/06/2025 French president Emmanuel Macron speaks at the NATO summit 25/06/2025 NATO leaders agreement is a 'huge victory' for Donald Trump 25/06/2025 NATO leaders agree on spending hike, vow to defend each other 25/06/2025 Iran nuclear: US Intelligence report challenges Trump's claims 25/06/2025 Gaza health authorities report over 40 death in aid queue 25/06/2025 France: Loire castles at risk due to climate change 25/06/2025 Russian strikes kill at least 26, injure over 200 in Dnipro Europe 25/06/2025 Heatwave blankets US East Coast 25/06/2025 In Israel, the hope for a lasting truce
France 24
43 minutes ago
- France 24
Trump says 'three or four' candidates in mind for Fed chief
Unlike his precedessors, who avoided giving advice to the independent central bank, Trump has fired frequent broadsides at Powell, urging him to cut interest rates. "I know within three or four people who I'm going to pick," Trump told reporters after a NATO summit. "I mean he goes out pretty soon fortunately because I think he's terrible," said Trump of Powell, whose term ends in May next year. Trump added that Powell was "average mentally" and had "low IQ for what he does." On Tuesday, Powell said the world's top central bank needed to see the impact of Trump's tariffs before deciding on further rate cuts. He told US lawmakers that the Fed needed to ensure that a one-time spike in prices did not become an "ongoing inflation problem." But he said rates could be lowered sooner if inflation came in weaker than expected or if the labour market deteriorated. The Fed has held its benchmark lending rate steady since its last reduction in December, bringing the level to a range between 4.25 percent and 4.50 percent. Hours before Powell's testimony on Tuesday, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform that rates should be "at least two to three points lower."
