Trump’s Ukraine peace push deepens European fears about NATO’s future

US President Donald Trump (Courtesy: Reuters photo)

Across Europe, officials are watching a jarring contrast this week. On one side, White House special envoy Steve Witkoff is back in Moscow for yet another round of Ukraine peace talks, his sixth trip this year, despite never having visited Kyiv. On the other, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is skipping a key NATO foreign ministers’ meeting and sending a deputy in his place, something that has not happened since the late 1990s.

For many European capitals, that split screen captures a deeper worry: Washington appears more focused on cutting a deal with the Kremlin than on reassuring allies or coordinating strategy through NATO. The concern is not just about protocol; it is about whether the United States still sees itself as the central pillar of Europe’s security architecture, the Wall Street Journal reported.

A peace plan that looks like a win for Moscow

Those anxieties have intensified since the leak of a 28-point draft peace plan and transcripts of a call between Witkoff and a senior Kremlin adviser, Yuri Ushakov. The documents have fed the perception that the Trump administration’s priority is resetting relations and economic ties with Russia, even if that comes at Ukraine’s expense.

Two elements of the draft have particularly alarmed Europe’s defence establishment. First, the plan effectively treats Russia as the victor, asking Ukraine to cede strategic territory it has not yet lost, accept limits on the size of its armed forces and forgo firm security guarantees from the United States or NATO. Second, it casts Washington as a mediator between Russia and NATO, rather than as a full and committed member of the alliance itself.

Critics in Europe have likened the blueprint to a distorted Versailles: a settlement that punishes the victim and rewards the aggressor. Several governments have pushed back, and diplomats say some of the more extreme provisions have been softened. Still, the underlying direction of travel has left many allies wondering how far Washington is prepared to go to close a deal.

Europe and Washington see different wars

Part of the tension reflects fundamentally different perspectives on the conflict. European governments, particularly in the east, see a Russia that is rearming, probing NATO’s defences with cyberattacks, drones and aerial incursions, and testing undersea infrastructure. For them, Ukraine is not just about one war; it is about deterring the next one, possibly on NATO territory.

By contrast, many in Washington view Ukraine through a shorter lens. The priority is securing a ceasefire, capping American costs and freeing attention and resources to confront China. Ending active fighting and declaring a “cold peace,” even if fragile and temporary, can look like a success from that vantage point.

This divergence in time horizons and threat perceptions feeds broader European fears that the United States is slowly stepping back from its traditional role as ultimate guarantor of the continent’s security.

Why NATO cohesion is on the line

The leaked peace framework also touches a raw nerve because of what it implies for NATO’s unity. The alliance is built on a simple promise: an attack on one is an attack on all, backed by American power, including its nuclear umbrella. If Washington appears ready to grant Moscow de facto amnesty for its invasion, restore Russia to clubs such as the G-8 and pursue joint economic projects in places like the Arctic, many European leaders worry that political will to confront future aggression will erode.

Analysts warn that reintegrating Russia too quickly could deepen splits within the alliance. Governments more exposed to Russian threats, such as those in the Baltic and along NATO’s eastern flank, may push for tougher stances, while others might see renewed trade and energy ties as an opportunity to de-escalate. That kind of divergence is exactly what the Kremlin has long sought to exploit.

The nightmare scenario for the alliance

Underlying these debates is a scenario that has been circulating in European policy circles: what if Moscow tests NATO directly once Ukraine is forced into an unfavourable peace? One widely discussed hypothetical imagines Russian forces or proxy units seizing a small, symbolically chosen patch of NATO territory, such as a town in Estonia with a large Russian-speaking population or a few kilometres of the Suwalki Gap between Poland and Lithuania.

The military stakes of such a move would be limited, but the political stakes enormous. If a US president decided that the risk of a broader war was too high and argued against a full-scale response, and if a handful of sympathetic European governments backed that caution, the alliance’s core promise would suddenly look uncertain.

Security experts say that NATO’s credibility does not erode gradually; it can be shattered by a single failure to act. If allies hesitated or responded weakly to a limited incursion, publics and governments alike would start asking whether the mutual defence clause really means what it says, and under what circumstances Washington would actually be willing to fight for smaller members.

A test of trust on both sides of the Atlantic

For now, NATO remains intact, and European leaders are still trying to shape the Ukraine peace talks from within, pressing for stronger guarantees and clearer limits on Russian gains. But the symbolism of a US envoy shuttling to Moscow while the secretary of state skips a key alliance meeting has not been lost on anyone.

The coming months will test not just the details of any eventual settlement in Ukraine, but also the deeper question of whether the United States and Europe still share the same vision of their security partnership — or whether Russia is succeeding in driving a wedge into the heart of the trans-Atlantic alliance.