Why Trump is attacking Europe and how it affects Ukraine: main motives and risks

While in Kyiv they are counting votes in Congress and searching for a formula for an acceptable peace, in Washington the US president is giving ratings to entire continents. In his rhetoric, Europe is turning into a “collapsed” space with “weak” leaders who “live at the expense of America” and are unable to win the war or stop the migration crisis. In this picture of the world, Ukraine is more of an annoying irritant that hinders a new grand deal with Russia and is used to put pressure on European capitals than a state that restrains Kremlin aggression for the entire West.

The Politico article, which ZN.UA refers to, shows that Donald Trump's contempt for Europe is not an emotional outburst or a random phrase in an interview, but a fairly consistent ideology that is even enshrined in the new US National Security Strategy.^{1 4} It describes the EU as a space of "civilizational decline," and European capitals as a political and cultural antagonist of "nationalist" America, which, according to Trump's logic, justifies a sharp reduction in Washington's commitments to NATO allies and Ukraine.^{1 4 6}

How Politico describes Trump's "culture war" with Europe

A large analytical article by Politico emphasizes that Trump is building a real "culture war" with Europe, not just an ordinary dispute about the size of defense budgets, but a real "culture war," where the continent is the embodiment of "liberal decline."^{2 4} In an interview with the publication, he calls European countries "weak" and "decaying," blames them for the failure of migration policy, and even warns of the possible "civilizational disappearance" of Europe if it does not change course regarding borders and identity.^{2 5 7}

Jeremy Shapiro, Director of Research at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), in a conversation with Politico, explains this rhetoric as follows: in Trump's worldview, the world is divided into "strong" and "weak", and he instinctively ignores those he perceives as weak.^{1 3} He had long labeled Europeans as part of this camp because of their low defense spending and dependence on American security, but in his second term, Shapiro said, this disdain has taken on new intensity thanks to the influence of more radical advisers, including Vice President J.D. Vance, who have portrayed the EU as a “liberal bulwark” in the global battle between the MAGA movement and “globalists.”^{1 3}

Why flattery makes Europe even weaker in Trump's eyes

One of Shapiro's most pointed theses concerns the behavior of European leaders themselves: according to him, many of them consciously choose the tactics of flattery and "manual management" of Trump - warm meetings, praise, public compliments - in the hope of softening his position on NATO and Ukraine.^{1 3} The backbone of this tactic is familiar: private messages, avoiding public conflicts, attempts to "charm" the president in order to get a few softer formulations in joint statements or slightly clearer signals regarding sanctions against Russia.^{2 4}

The problem, Shapiro notes, is that Trump perceives such behavior not as diplomatic skill, but as evidence of weakness: “He hates weakness, and flattery is its highest embodiment,” the expert explains.^{1 3} Every "successful" meeting, after which the European delegation returns home with the feeling that it has managed to "shift the US position in favor of Ukraine," eventually breaks down into another sharp turn in Trump's rhetoric, who, sensing the compliance of his partners, only intensifies his demands and uses their dependence as a lever of pressure.^{1 3 4}

New US Security Strategy: Europe as a "problem, not an asset"

One of the most alarming signals, which ZN.UA draws attention to with reference to Politico, is the new US National Security Strategy, where Europe is described in language that a few years ago seemed unthinkable for an official White House document.^{1 4} The text speaks of the "civilizational decline" of European societies, their inability to cope with migration and internal conflicts, and questions the ability of individual countries to remain "reliable allies" without revising their political course.^{2 5 7}

Politico and Le Monde note that this strategy not only captures the ideological gap, but also creates a basis for practical steps: reducing long-term US commitments in Europe, reorienting resources to domestic priorities and Asia, and demanding that Europeans either radically increase defense spending or prepare for much greater autonomy in matters of their own security.^{4 5 7} In this context, any discussions about new aid packages for Ukraine are automatically woven into a broader question: how much Europe itself is willing to pay to contain Russia.

How Ukraine found itself between Trump and Europe

The Politico article, which ZN.UA refers to, emphasizes: Washington's worsening attitude towards Brussels inevitably hits Kyiv, since Europe remains Ukraine's key partner in financial, military, and political dimensions.^{1 4} If Trump increasingly perceives European capitals as "weak passengers" on the American security ship, then any support for Ukraine from the United States looks in his eyes like indirect subsidization of these same "passengers" who, in his opinion, are "unable to take responsibility."^{2 4 6}

Another important line is Trump's desire to get rid of the Ukrainian war as a political problem as soon as possible, even at the cost of territorial concessions by Kyiv, which arouses open opposition from most European capitals.^{4 6 10} Reuters and Le Monde reported that on the issue of the "peace plan", the positions of Trump and leading EU leaders differ fundamentally: if Washington and his current administration are ready to discuss scenarios with partial recognition of Russian occupations, then the Europeans view this as a direct blow to their own security and a precedent for future aggressions.^{6 10}

Why is Europe considered "guilty" of prolonging the war?

The BBC and the South China Morning Post report that in recent interviews, Trump not only criticizes Europe for "weakness," but also places some responsibility on it for the duration of the Russian-Ukrainian war, claiming that European governments "only talk, but do little."^{5 7 8} In his interpretation, it is Brussels, Paris, and Berlin that are allegedly allowing Ukraine to "fight until it falls" instead of "pressing" Kyiv for a quick peace treaty that is more beneficial to American economic interests in relations with Moscow.^{4 7 8}

Politico, on the other hand, emphasizes that such an interpretation ignores a basic fact: it is Ukraine that is not ready to agree to a peace that legalizes the occupation, and most European capitals (especially in the east) support this position as the only realistic one from the point of view of the continent's long-term security.^{2 4 10} The conflict between Trump's desire to "close the issue" and European fears of a "bad peace" puts Kyiv at the center of a transatlantic dispute, where each side is trying to use Ukraine as an argument in favor of its own strategy.

Antipathy towards Ukraine: myths of 2016 and “fatigue” of 2025

ZN.UA reminds us that Trump's hostility to Ukraine is a separate but related story, which Politico analyzed in another publication: its roots lie in a conspiracy of theories about alleged "Kyiv's interference in the 2016 elections on the side of the Democrats" and in the impeachment scandal due to pressure on Zelensky during his first term.^{6 9} For part of the conservative electorate, Ukraine has become a symbol of the "corrupt foreign project of the Democrats," and support for Kyiv is a sign of the "old establishment" from which Trump distances himself.^{6 9}

According to Politico, in the second term, another factor is added to this: banal fatigue from the topic of war, which dominates the foreign policy agenda and distracts attention from the domestic stories on which Trump builds his popularity.^{2 4} That is why his rhetoric increasingly boils down to demanding that Zelensky "become a realist," agree to "acceptable" conditions, and allow Trump to take credit for "ending the war," without going into details about the cost to Ukraine and the security of Europe.^{4 7 10}

The European response: strategic hangover and the search for autonomy

European publications, from Le Monde to Bloomberg, write about Trump's current statements in a tone close to alarming: back in his first term, he fiercely attacked the EU for "economic robbery of America," but now he openly speaks of his desire to weaken or even destroy this union as a political force.^{6 8 11} The EU fine for Elon Musk's X Company was described by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio as an "attack by foreign governments on the American people", which fits well into the overall scheme of the conflict: Europe as a hostile "globalist entity" that suppresses American business and imposes undesirable values.^{8 11}

Politico and ZN.UA note that against this background, discussions about strategic autonomy are intensifying in European capitals: whether the EU, in the event of further distancing from the US, is able to independently support Ukraine, contain Russia, and at the same time maintain its own internal unity.^{1 6 12} So far, the answers are more theoretical than practical: real defense budgets and the pace of industrial capacity expansion lag behind the rhetoric, and the gap with Washington on the issue of a "peace plan" for Ukraine only exacerbates internal disputes within the EU.^{6 10 12}

Risks for Ukraine: from a “bad peace” to war fatigue

From Ukraine's perspective, the configuration described by Politico threatens at least two scenarios. The first is pressure from Washington towards a quick "political settlement" with territorial concessions, which Kyiv cannot accept without destroying its own legal and political foundation.^{4 6 10} The second is the gradual erosion of support, as the war becomes a "chronic problem" for the American political class, and for European governments, a source of internal voter discontent due to high defense, energy, and migration bills.^{6 9 12}

In such a situation, it is critically important for Ukraine not to become just a "bargaining item" between Washington and Brussels, but to maintain its own subjective voice: to propose specific security formats, demonstrate reforms and the ability to effectively use aid, and build separate bilateral relations with key European capitals outside the framework of American leadership alone.^{10 12} The more convincing the image of Ukraine as a responsible, modern partner, the more difficult it will be for any US administration or individual European governments to explain to their societies a sharp change of course towards Kyiv.

What Europe can do — and with it Ukraine

The final reviews by Politico and ZN.UA emphasize: the worst response from Europe to the current wave of Trump criticism is to continue to pretend that a few more successful diplomatic gestures are enough and the president will "change" or "soften his rhetoric."^{1 4 12} In reality, we are talking about a stable political course, where the continent is perceived not as a partner, but as a weak link, which hinders the realization of American interests in the confrontation with China and, potentially, in agreements with Moscow.^{4 7 11}

For Ukraine, this means a simple but unpleasant truth: it will have to build a new system of security guarantees not only "under" the US, but also together with them and the EU, forcing both sides to reckon with the fact that Kyiv is the main front line in the conflict with Russia.^{6 10 12} The sooner Europe stops playing the role of a "grateful recipient" of American protection and takes real responsibility for its security — including the defense of Ukraine — the less leverage those in Washington who see it as nothing more than an "unnecessary burden" and a "weak ally" will have.

Sources

1. ZN.UA: "Why Trump hates Europe and what does Ukraine have to do with it" (review of interviews and analysis by Politico and ECFR)
2. Politico Magazine: "Why Does Trump Disdain Europe?"
3. ECFR / quotes from Jeremy Shapiro in an interview with Politico regarding Trump's attitude towards Europe
4. Politico Nightly: "Trump's real talk about Europe" – an analysis of the rhetoric about a "weak" and "fallen" Europe
5. BBC News: "Trump criticizes 'decaying' European countries and 'weak' leaders, hints at scaling back support for Ukraine"
6. ZN.UA / Bloomberg: materials about Trump's contemptuous attitude towards the EU and a possible revision of US commitments in Europe
7. Le Monde: "Trump slams 'decaying' Europe: 'I think they're weak'" – on criticism of Europe in an interview with Politico
8. South China Morning Post: "Trump blasts 'decaying' and 'weak' Europe, pushes Ukraine on elections"
9. ZN.UA: "Why Does Donald Trump Hate Ukraine? — Politico" – about anti-Ukrainian phobias and the 2016 elections
10. Reuters / European media: analysis of disagreements between the US and the EU over the "peace plan" for Ukraine
11. Bloomberg / The Hill: Reactions from Democrats and European politicians to Trump's criticism of Europe
12. ZN.UA / Politico: articles on the EU debate on strategic autonomy amid the risk of US distancing