Trump right to keep European allies from Ukraine talks, they’d be ‘obstacle’ to peace, expert says

The Trump Administration’s Potential Plan to Exclude European Allies from Ukraine-Russia Negotiations

1. A Proposal That Has Sparked Panic Among European Leaders

The suggestion by the Trump administration to potentially exclude European allies from negotiations aimed at ending the war in Ukraine has sent shockwaves across the continent, prompting a mix of concern and anxiety among European leaders. Experts like Rebekah Koffler, a strategic military intelligence analyst and former Defense Intelligence Agency official, suggest that this approach might be necessary to break the deadlock in the conflict. Koffler argues that the lack of consensus among NATO members regarding Ukraine’s potential NATO membership could hinder progress in negotiations, making it a futile effort to include European allies in direct talks. She emphasizes that Europeans do not hold decision-making power in this context, asserting that the outcome of the war ultimately rests in the hands of Russian President Vladimir Putin and former U.S. President Donald Trump. Koffler believes that Putin, given his strategic advantages on the battlefield and beyond, holds all the leverage in these negotiations.

This perspective has caused alarm among European leaders, who are deeply invested in the outcome of the conflict. French President Emmanuel Macron has called an emergency meeting with other European leaders to discuss Trump’s potential plan, reflecting the widespread concern that excluding Europe from negotiations could undermine their ability to influence the terms of any settlement. Despite the uncertainty, Trump has reassured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that Ukraine will indeed be involved in any peace talks, though the role of European nations remains unclear.

2. Trump’s Likely Rationale for Excluding European Allies

According to Koffler, there are two primary reasons why Trump might choose to exclude European allies from direct negotiations. First, there is no consensus among NATO members on the issue of Ukraine’s potential membership in the alliance. While some nations support the idea, others oppose it, creating a significant obstacle that could derail meaningful progress in talks. Koffler argues that introducing this divisive issue into negotiations would be counterproductive and unnecessary.

Second, Koffler asserts that European leaders do not bring any substantial value to the negotiations. She maintains that the Europeans are not decision-makers in this conflict, and their involvement would only add more voices to an already complex discussion. In her view, the only true “deciders” in this situation are Putin and Trump, with Putin holding the upper hand due to Russia’s military dominance and strategic positioning. Koffler believes that acknowledging this reality is essential if the U.S. hopes to achieve a resolution to the conflict. Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, has also suggested that involving European leaders could complicate the process, stating, “We don’t want to get into a large group discussion.”

3. European Leaders’ Concerns and the Significance of Their Involvement

The potential exclusion of European leaders from negotiations has sparked concern across the continent, as many believe that Europe’s involvement is crucial for achieving a sustainable and lasting peace. European nations are directly impacted by the war in Ukraine, both in terms of security and economic stability, and their support would be essential for any agreement to hold. Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of state during the Obama administration, has cautioned against excluding European allies, arguing that a deal reached without their involvement is unlikely to foster a durable end to the conflict. Rubin emphasizes that Europe’s geographical proximity to Russia and its historical ties to the region make its role in negotiations indispensable.

Rubin also points out that including European leaders in the negotiations would allow for the sharing of costs and responsibilities associated with any potential settlement. He draws parallels to past diplomatic successes, such as the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, where U.S. involvement was accompanied by significant commitments to both parties in the form of economic and military aid. Rubin warns that if the Trump administration were to take on a central role in negotiations without involving Europe, it could lead to major commitments that the U.S. may not be able to sustain on its own.

4. The Realist Perspective: Trump and Putin as the Key Players

Koffler’s analysis reflects a realist perspective, which prioritizes power dynamics and geopolitical realities over ideological considerations. She argues that Trump’s approach to the conflict is rooted in this realist worldview, which recognizes that Ukraine is at a significant disadvantage compared to Russia. Koffler maintains that Ukraine lost the war before it even began, given Russia’s overwhelming military superiority. She criticizes the Biden administration and the mainstream media for promoting what she calls an “alternate reality,” where Ukraine is portrayed as having a chance to win the war. Koffler believes that this narrative has misled the American public and ignored the stark realities on the ground.

In her view, any honest and unbiased assessment of the conflict would conclude that Russia’s dominance is unavoidable, and that the only way to end the war is through direct negotiations between the U.S. and Russia. Koffler argues that Trump is uniquely positioned to facilitate these negotiations, as he is willing to acknowledge the realities of the situation and take steps that others might shy away from. She suggests that Trump’s willingness to offer concessions to Putin, such as ruling out NATO membership for Ukraine and allowing Russia to retain control of certain territories, could be the only way to bring an end to the conflict. However, Koffler also acknowledges that Putin may ultimately refuse any deal, leaving little leverage for the U.S. or Ukraine.

5. Macron’s Emergency Meeting and the European Reaction

In response to Trump’s potential plan, French President Emmanuel Macron has convened an emergency meeting with other European leaders to discuss the implications of being excluded from negotiations. The meeting, attended by leaders from Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, Denmark, Poland, and the Netherlands, reflects the deep concern among European nations about being sidelined in a conflict that directly affects their security and stability. The gathering follows a security conference in Munich, Germany, where Trump’s special envoy Keith Kellogg hinted that European leaders might not be involved in any U.S.-brokered deal between Ukraine and Russia.

Kellogg’s comments have only added to the sense of unease among European leaders, who fear that their exclusion could marginalize their interests and reduce their ability to influence the terms of any settlement. The emergency meeting in Paris is seen as an attempt to coordinate a unified European response to the situation and ensure that their voices are heard in the negotiations. However, with Trump’s administration appearing to favor a more direct approach to negotiations, it remains unclear whether European leaders will have a meaningful role to play in the process.

6. The Implications of Excluding Europe from the Negotiations

The decision to exclude European allies from negotiations carries significant implications for the future of the conflict and the broader geopolitical landscape. On one hand, excluding Europe could streamline the negotiating process, allowing the U.S. and Russia to reach a resolution more quickly. On the other hand, it risks alienating key allies and undermining the long-term stability of any agreement reached. Joel Rubin warns that a deal without European involvement would lack the necessary buy-in from nations that are directly impacted by the conflict, making it unlikely to hold in the long term.

Koffler, however, believes that involving Europeans would only complicate an already difficult process. She argues that Putin is the only leader with the leverage to dictate the terms of a settlement, and that Trump’s willingness to engage in direct negotiations with him is the only way to achieve a resolution. While this approach may be seen as pragmatic, it also raises concerns about the marginalization of European allies and the potential for a deal that fails to address their concerns.

Ultimately, the path forward remains uncertain, with both sides presenting compelling arguments for and against the involvement of European leaders in the negotiations. What is clear is that the outcome of the conflict will have far-reaching consequences for Ukraine, Russia, Europe, and the United States, making it imperative to approach the negotiations with careful consideration and a commitment to achieving a lasting peace.