If our European allies were hoping for reassurance from President Donald Trump’s administration during the Munich Security Conference in Germany last weekend, then they left the hotel ballroom sadly disappointed. The multiday event, previously used by senior foreign policy officials as a platform for convincing the rest of the world that the transatlantic alliance is alive and thriving, was a setting for anxiety and trepidation this year.

Europe’s leaders of course understood that the Trump White House wouldn’t be as mealymouthed and committed to the old security paradigm as Joe Biden was when he was president. But even the European delegates in the room came away shocked with what Trump administration officials were saying. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, for instance, delivered a bold speech during the conference’s opening day by spouting some hard truths: Ukraine is unlikely to get all of its territory back, the U.S. won’t be sending in its own troops to enforce any ceasefire (assuming one gets hashed out) and European militaries need to get serious about investing in hard power if they want to be something more than irrelevant bystanders.

Vice President JD Vance didn’t even bother talking about Ukraine or Russia, choosing to instead blast European political elites for shutting out far-right parties from acceptable political discourse. The Europeans were aghast; when it was his turn to speak, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius denounced Vance’s assertion that free speech in Europe was under assault.

The biggest issue, however, wasn’t about individual personalities but rather about the war that is churning 1,500 miles to the east of the conference hall. Indeed, more than anything else, Ukraine has the potential to be a major issue at the heart of the U.S.-European alliance. Disagreements between Washington and certain European capitals aren’t new, of course — there were plenty of heated behind-the-scenes arguments about the war during the Biden administration’s four years. Those debates, however, largely centered on tactics, such as which weapons platforms to provide to Kyiv and whether it was appropriate for the Ukrainian army to fire short-range ballistic missiles into Russia. The disagreements this time around are more fundamental: how to end the war diplomatically, what a hypothetical peace deal should look like and how involved the Europeans should be in the entire process.

The Americans aren’t waiting for these deliberations to play out to their conclusion. Trump spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week, the first time a U.S. president talked with the Russian despot since the war began nearly three years ago, and agreed to start peace negotiations immediately. U.S. and Russian officials have been dispatched to Saudi Arabia this week to begin the process, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will fly to Riyadh on Wednesday after the talks conclude to receive his own briefing.

The Ukrainians are understandably worried that Trump is ready to sell them down the river. Zelenskyy went on American television on Sunday to underscore that he will never accept a deal about Ukraine that is negotiated behind his back. Even so, Zelenskyy doesn’t want to be viewed by Trump — a man who has a hard time forgiving slights, real and perceived — as the main obstacle to his dreams and is therefore cooperating to the extent he can.

The Europeans, meanwhile, are coming across as dumbstruck, confused and panicked. Trump’s decision to call Putin was surprising enough, but the fact that Washington organized a peace process in a matter of days, especially when the previous U.S. administration was hesitant about doing anything without Kyiv’s approval, has undoubtedly left Europe feeling like it’s been smacked in the face. Because Ukraine ultimately matters more to Europe than it does to the U.S., European heads of state are fretful about being left out to dry. A good deal of them expressed their misgivings during the Munich conference and released a joint statement insisting that Europe be a part of any negotiations about a settlement to the war.

Like the rest of us, Europe is frantically trying to catch up with Trump’s Washington. French President Emmanuel Macron organized a fast-track summit in Paris on Monday in the hope that a common European position on the war can be hashed out. Right now, the Europeans agree on the basics: First, they should get a seat at the peace table, and second, any peace settlement must include security guarantees on Kyiv’s behalf so Putin is deterred from resuming the war at a later date.

Yet other than that, the Europeans are divided among themselves on the specifics. Some, such as Macron and United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer, are willing to put their own troops in harm’s way to ensure a ceasefire is durable and credible. Others, such as Germany and even Poland, aren’t exactly enamored with the idea of deploying inside Ukraine because such a mission would be an expensive, resource-taxing endeavor that could leave parts of NATO’s eastern flank exposed to Russian shenanigans.

Nor is there European unity on what form a security guarantee in Ukraine would take. How large would this force need to be? (Zelenskyy says at least 200,000 troops would be required. ) Which parts of Ukraine would these troops deploy to? How close to the ceasefire line would they be? While Trump has insisted that no U.S. forces would take part, would Washington have an indirect role in sustaining the European-led deployment? If not, would Europe be able to maintain this peace enforcement mission over the long term? Would Putin even view it as credible?

The Trump administration’s first jaunt in Europe only added more questions to the pile.

____

Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune.

___

©2025 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.