The latest meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, known as the Ramstein format, marked a significant shift in the United States’ stance on the war in Ukraine.
For the first time, the meeting was chaired by the United Kingdom rather than the US, reinforcing the perception that the Biden-era leadership role in coordinating military support for Ukraine is waning.
US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, appointed under President Donald Trump, delivered remarks that suggest a recalibration of Washington’s priorities. Hegseth stated unequivocally that Ukraine should not expect NATO membership in the foreseeable future, nor should it count on full restoration of its internationally recognised 2014 borders.
Instead, he emphasised that security guarantees for Ukraine should come primarily from European nations, signalling a reduced American commitment to Kyiv’s long-term defence.
US Prioritises Indo-Pacific Over Ukraine Conflict
The shift in rhetoric aligns with the broader strategic focus of the Trump administration, which has prioritised countering China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific region over direct involvement in the European security landscape.
Notably, Hegseth did not provide any assurances regarding continued US military aid to Ukraine, nor did he outline specific measures Washington intends to take against Russia. His comments on energy policy focused on lowering global oil prices rather than strengthening sanctions against Moscow or deploying American forces to support Ukraine.
The lack of concrete commitments on military aid raises concerns over the sustainability of Ukraine’s war effort, particularly as European partners shoulder an increasing share of the burden.
The absence of a new US military assistance package, despite the existence of budgetary reserves that could be allocated without congressional approval, suggests an intentional delay in decision-making.
Signs of a US Diplomatic Retreat
Further reinforcing the impression of US disengagement, Trump’s special representative on Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, has yet to present a clear peace plan, despite recent speculation in the media. According to Kellogg, the plan should ultimately be unveiled by President Trump himself. However, before making any public announcements, Washington appears intent on consulting European allies, once again shifting responsibility onto them.
Another development raising concerns in Kyiv is the reported visit to Moscow by Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, who has now also been given a role in handling Ukraine policy. During his trip, Witkoff reportedly held closed-door talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and senior Kremlin officials. His mission ostensibly focused on securing the release of American citizen Marc Fogel, a teacher detained in Russia since 2021 on drug possession charges. While The New York Times reported that Moscow granted Fogel’s release as a goodwill gesture, speculation persists that the Kremlin will expect a reciprocal concession from Washington, possibly related to the fate of a Russian agent held in the US.
This move has fuelled fears that the Trump administration may engage in secretive negotiations with Moscow that prioritise US interests over Ukrainian sovereignty. It also suggests a potential break from the Biden administration’s principle of ensuring Ukraine’s full participation in any discussions affecting its future.
Trump’s Approach: Pragmatism or Isolationism?
Statements from Trump himself have done little to reassure Ukraine or its European allies. The former president has repeatedly linked further military aid to Ukraine with economic returns for the US, suggesting that any assistance should be conditioned on Kyiv granting American companies access to its rare-earth mineral resources. This stance has raised concerns that Washington’s approach to Ukraine under Trump may be driven primarily by financial considerations rather than geopolitical strategy or principles of international law.
Trump’s repeated assertions that the war in Ukraine should end quickly—without specifying how—have added to the ambiguity surrounding his administration’s intentions. His social media comments characterising Moscow’s recent actions as a “positive step” towards peace suggest a readiness to portray any superficial gestures from Putin as evidence of de-escalation, even in the absence of substantive concessions from the Kremlin.
European Response and the Future of US-Ukraine Relations
With Washington’s commitment uncertain, European nations have intensified their support for Ukraine. Countries such as Germany, France, and the UK have increased military aid, while Scandinavian and Baltic states continue to provide substantial assistance. Ukraine’s own military-industrial sector has also received financing from European partners, allowing it to maintain arms production despite gaps in US support.
Nonetheless, the absence of clear American leadership has implications for Ukraine’s long-term strategy. While Kyiv remains committed to resisting Russian aggression, questions linger over the sustainability of its war effort if US aid remains in limbo. European partners, while committed to assisting Ukraine, lack the strategic depth and military-industrial capacity to fully replace American contributions in the long run.
For now, Ukraine continues to press for guarantees that any future peace agreement will not be dictated by the Kremlin. President Volodymyr Zelensky and his administration maintain that any settlement must ensure Ukraine’s territorial integrity and provide lasting security assurances. However, with the Trump administration prioritising its domestic agenda and reducing America’s global engagement, the challenge for Kyiv is to navigate an increasingly uncertain geopolitical landscape—one where Washington’s role as a security guarantor is no longer assured.
Read also:
Zelenskyy: Ukraine Ready to Offer Mineral Rights to US in Mutually Beneficial Agreement
