Kottayam:
Deepening transatlantic discord could leave space for authoritarian powers to reshape international norms in their favour.
The dramatic Oval Office showdown between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on February 28 sent shivers through the transatlantic alliance, breaking down diplomatic efforts and economic negotiations in real time.
Its fallout draws attention to a larger crisis for the rules-based liberal international order.
Washington DC has traditionally positioned itself as the defender of democracy, free markets, and security alliances.
However, the Trump administration’s mercurial approach to foreign policy, coupled with the divisive rhetoric surrounding Ukraine, weakens this image.
The rift with Kyiv not only affects Ukraine’s survival but also signals that America’s international commitments may be subject to domestic political calculations.
Shifts in US-Atlantic alliance commitments
Trump’s refusal to offer assurances to Ukraine, coupled with his broader scepticism towards NATO, suggests that Washington may be turning toward a more pragmatic approach to transatlantic relations.
This uncertainty has spurred European leaders to consider bolstering their own defence initiatives.
According to former German ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger, history has shown the dangers of leaving Europe to handle Russia alone. The failures of the Minsk process and Normandy talks, along with Europe’s ineffective handling of the Bosnian war, showed the need for strong US leadership.
When Washington disengages, Russia escalates—as seen in the annexation of Crimea and the 2022 Ukraine invasion. However, Europe cannot remain a passive player.
Ischinger calls for a European Defence Union (EDU) to enhance military cooperation, joint procurement, and strategic decision-making. At the same time, European policymakers are uncomfortable with the possibility of a US-Russia realignment. Trump’s rhetoric suggests he may seek to de-escalate tensions with Moscow, potentially at Ukraine’s expense. This might alarm NATO allies in Eastern Europe, particularly Poland and the Baltic states, who view sustained US military presence as essential for deterring Russian strategies.
Impact on US global standing
The diplomatic spectacle in the Oval Office has damaged US credibility as a reliable ally.
The public nature of Trump’s rebuke to Zelenskyy, coupled with Vice President JD Vance’s criticism of Ukraine’s war effort, has fuelled perceptions that Washington may even abandon key partners. European leaders, including EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, have gone so far as to suggest that the US is no longer the leader of the free world, calling for Europe to step up in its place.
The situation also raises concerns about America’s broader strategic interests.
The US benefits from a stable Europe that can counterbalance Russian and Chinese influence. A weakened transatlantic alliance could bolster adversaries, erode American influence, and reduce the effectiveness of Western-led international institutions.
If Washington fails to reassure its allies, Europe may increasingly explore alternative arrangements, including greater military coordination with the UK and deeper partnerships with Indo-Pacific allies.
US-Ukraine mineral deal
President Trump’s push for US access to Ukraine’s vast mineral wealth faces uncertainty after a tense Oval Office clash.
Ukraine holds US$14.8 trillion in rare earth and critical minerals, but lacks active extraction projects. Trump’s US$500 billion claim on rare earths is disputed, as the global market is worth only US$12 billion. Moreover, 40 percent of Ukraine’s mineral reserves and 20 percent of hydrocarbons are under Russian control. With China dominating 90 percent of rare earth processing, the deal’s feasibility remains unclear.
The failed US-Ukraine mineral agreement was intended to grant Washington priority access to Ukraine’s vast rare earth and critical mineral reserves. These resources are essential for defence industries, electric vehicle production, and advanced technology sectors.
However, the deal collapsed amid Trump’s accusations that Zelenskyy was ungrateful for past US support and his insistence on security assurances before finalising any agreement.
The broader implications of this deal extend beyond Ukraine.
The US remains dependent on China for rare earth processing, and securing Ukrainian minerals was seen as a way to counterbalance Beijing’s dominance.
However, the stalled negotiations have left Washington without a clear alternative, forcing policymakers to reconsider their supply chain strategy.
Meanwhile, European nations, already deepening economic and military ties with Ukraine, may step in to secure these resources. This shift could accelerate Europe’s efforts to develop its own independent supply chain, reducing reliance on both China and the US.
Uncertain future of Riyadh peace process
Lastly, the fate of the Riyadh peace talks, hosted by Saudi Arabia with broad international participation, aimed to explore a potential settlement between Ukraine and Russia, has become uncertain. The Oval Office engagement has significantly complicated this process amid claims of more support for Trump in “pursuit of peace in Ukraine.”
Zelenskyy’s insistence on security guarantees as a prerequisite for any peace agreement has placed him at odds with Trump, who appears increasingly open to negotiating directly with Russia.
The Trump administration’s refusal to commit to continued military aid weakens Ukraine’s bargaining position and raises concerns among European allies about US reliability as a security partner.
With Europe reaffirming its support for Ukraine, the Riyadh peace initiative risks being overshadowed by a transatlantic fracture.
Amid speculation that Trump may cut military aid to Ukraine, European leaders reaffirmed their support. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer pledged continued backing, signing a US$4.5 billion loan for Ukraine’s defence.
French President Emmanuel Macron dismissed Trump’s claim that Zelenskyy was “gambling with World War III,” stating the real threat was Putin. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and other EU leaders echoed similar sentiments, with some calling for greater European responsibility in Ukraine’s defence.
Meanwhile, Moscow saw the US-Ukraine rift with sarcasm, viewing it as an opportunity to push its own terms for a ceasefire.
Europe’s response to the different dimensions of this crisis will be crucial.
If EU leaders can forge a unified strategy on Ukraine, deepen defence cooperation, and establish greater economic resilience, they may be able to fill the leadership vacuum left by US uncertainty.
This shift could lead to a fragmented world order where Europe takes a more central role in global governance. However, if transatlantic discord deepens, it could leave space for authoritarian powers to reshape international norms in their favour.
K M Seethi is Director, Inter University Centre for Social Science Research and Extension (IUCSSRE), Mahatma Gandhi University (MGU), Kerala, India. He also served as Senior Professor of International Relations and Dean of Social Sciences at MGU.
(Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
