European leaders at the White House: A turning point – or a fleeting show of resolve?

***Dit artikel is in het Engels***

As the world held its breath during last night’s meeting at the White House between American President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy backed by European leaders, questions remain about whether Europe has what it takes to put pressure on both the U.S. and Russia to secure the best possible deal for Ukraine.

Studio Europa Maastricht spoke about it with Giselle Bosse, professor of European Union External Democracy Support at Maastricht University. Europe has already done a lot, she argues, but is it enough to secure Ukraine’s position at the negotiating table? At stake is not only Ukraine’s survival, but also the credibility of the European project, Bosse explains. Read why in her expert commentary.

Expert commentary by Giselle Bosse, professor of European Union External Democracy Support at Maastricht University.

Yesterday’s extraordinary scene in Washington – European leaders arriving en masse with Volodymyr Zelenskyy to meet President Trump – should be read as both an act of solidarity and a subtle act of defiance. They did not come as silent supporters. They came as guarantors, witnesses, and, in many ways, as bodyguards for Ukraine’s agency at the negotiating table.

The symbolism is powerful. By showing up together, European leaders sent a message not just to Trump but to Moscow: Ukraine is not alone, and Europe will not allow its security to be bartered in a bilateral deal between Washington and the Kremlin. That collective presence is itself a form of deterrence. Europe has already done a lot: from unprecedented sanctions on Russian banks and energy exports, to providing advanced weapons systems like Leopard tanks, Patriot air defences, and long-range missiles, to sheltering millions of Ukrainian refugees. It has also begun the slow but decisive work of rearming, with Germany’s Zeitenwende, Poland’s vast defence build-up, and EU-level joint procurement initiatives.

But Europe could and should do more. Energy loopholes still allow Russian oil and gas revenues to flow; military aid is too often delayed or fragmented; and defence industries remain sluggish in scaling up production. Europe could tighten sanctions enforcement, expand training missions, and commit to sustained, multi-year defence funding that matches the scale of the threat. It could also accelerate Ukraine’s integration into European structures, economically and militarily, treating Kyiv not just as a recipient of aid, but as a frontline partner in defending the continent. Such steps would also remind Putin that Europe has the means to escalate pressure further – economically, militarily, and diplomatically. He has built his power on coercion and force; he will only be checked by the same.

But beneath the symbolism lies a strategic unease. As analysts have warned, Europe still lacks a credible plan if U.S. support for Ukraine collapses. Despite having overtaken the U.S. in cumulative aid, Europeans remain tied to American security guarantees they cannot replace in the short term. And put more bluntly: Trump’s second term is a rupture in transatlantic politics, and Europe must reassert its values in a world where Washington is no longer predictable.

This is where the question of security guarantees becomes central. Zelenskyy is demanding nothing less than NATO-style protection. Trump has floated alternatives — a form of “Article 5-lite,” contingent and transactional but also vague and undefined. Some European leaders, notably French President Emanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, are now sketching out bolder options: European-led forces, or a multinational deterrent stationed inside Ukraine itself. Germany, more cautious, worries about overstretch. Yet the fact that these debates are even happening reveals how much the strategic landscape has shifted. Europeans are preparing, however tentatively, for a future where they must shoulder responsibility for their own defence — and they must increasingly see Ukraine not only as a recipient of solidarity but as an equal partner in defending Europe’s own security.

At stake is not just Ukraine’s survival, but the credibility of the European project. If Europe fractures,  if some states drift toward accommodation with Russia while others stand firm, the entire security architecture of the continent begins to unravel. EU unity, hard won through sanctions, energy decoupling, and military aid, is now being tested in the crucible of negotiations. To lose that unity would be to lose the essence of what Europe stands for.

At stake is not just Ukraine’s survival, but the credibility of the European project.

And what Europe stands for matters. At its best, the European project is a promise: that sovereignty, democracy, and human dignity will be defended not just in words but in deeds. Those values are on the line today in Ukraine. A peace that rewards aggression, that trades land for an (illusionary) temporary calm, would be a betrayal of both Ukraine’s agency and Europe’s own moral foundation.

What, then, is realistic to expect next?

In the immediate term, Washington is likely to provide Ukraine with verbal assurances of security and continued material support, but without locking itself into NATO-style commitments or troop deployments. Trump has signalled that he wants to position himself as the indispensable broker of peace, which makes a push for a trilateral with Putin and Zelenskyy plausible, though far from guaranteed. Europe, meanwhile, will work to ensure Ukraine is not forced into territorial concessions, while quietly preparing fallback options such as a European-led security coalition. Yet criticism is mounting that Europe still lacks a robust contingency plan if U.S. backing falters, leaving doubts about the credibility of its long-term commitment.

The best-case scenario in the weeks ahead would be progress toward a temporary ceasefire and a structured diplomatic framework, with the U.S. playing the role of convener and guarantor of talks, and Europe assuming greater responsibility for Ukraine’s security. The more realistic baseline, however, is a period of cautious waiting: verbal commitments from Washington, intensified European diplomacy, and an uncertain Kremlin response that could stall or derail the prospect of genuine trilateral talks. At worst, the summit risks being a temporary pause before renewed pressure on Ukraine to settle on Moscow’s terms.

But the real test comes in the longer run. Europe must recognize that the war in Ukraine is not an episode but a generational challenge. What comes next is nothing less than a strategic refounding: building the industrial base to sustain high-intensity defence, creating permanent security structures that do not depend on the electoral mood in the United States, and treating Ukraine as a co-architect of European security, not a supplicant to it. 

And here the question is simple: will Europe be content to react to events, scrambling after each American shift and each Russian provocation — or will it define, resource, and enforce its own vision of security on the continent? The answer will determine whether yesterday’s unity in Washington marks a turning point, or merely a fleeting show of resolve.