The Brutal Realities of Power Politics

We are at a decisive point for the future of Ukraine and the balance of power in Europe

After more than three years of fighting, and much human suffering, the war between Russia and Ukraine has reached a decisive moment. Ukraine has put up a determined and resilient resistance since Russia's invasion, enabled by the bravery of its soldiers, the strategic leadership of its government, and substantial military and financial support from NATO countries, the European Union, the United States, and other partners. Without this external backing, Ukraine’s position would have been far weaker. However, despite its resilience and international aid, Ukraine has not yet been able to fully restore its territorial integrity. Russia controls nearly 20% of Ukraine’s land.

Since the end of the Second World War, the United States—the only Western nuclear superpower—has underwritten European security, providing a military umbrella to NATO allies and acting as the primary deterrent against external threats, including Russia. While Britain and France possess their own nuclear deterrents, and European nations have significant conventional forces, the continent still relies heavily on U.S. military power for strategic defense and deterrence.

For decades, European nations have structured their security policies around the reliability of their transatlantic U.S. partner. The previous Biden administration followed this long-standing U.S. foreign policy, supporting Ukraine with weapons, intelligence, and financial aid in an effort to prevent Russian territorial gains. However, Ukraine was unable to decisively defeat Russia during Biden’s four-year term. With President Trump back in the White House, Washington's priorities have shifted. His America First approach seeks to end the war quickly, reduce U.S. commitments abroad, seek more European responsibility for its security, and improve relations with Russia—priorities he no doubt believes are in America's national interest. He has also ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine.

The U.S. Pivot and the Dilemma for Ukraine

A public disagreement between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office last Friday, concerning security guarantees that the U.S. does not seem to want to give, underscored the shifting dynamics of the war. Following the meeting, Trump wrote on social media that:

“I have determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for peace if America is involved, because he believes that our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE. He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace”.

It has since been reported, citing officials, that the U.S. has decided to pause more than $1 billion in aid to Ukraine in an apparent attempt to get Zelensky to commit to peace negotiations with Russia. Meanwhile, discussions in London—attended by key European, Canadian, and Turkish leaders—seemed to confirm that, at this stage, Europe lacks the military and strategic capacity to ensure Ukraine’s defense without U.S. backing. That was apparent in the British Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer’s, remarks at the subsequent press conference. Here is some of what he said to the press regarding a potential peace agreement:

“…we have to learn from the mistakes of the past. We cannot accept a weak deal like Minsk – Which Russia can breach with ease. Instead, any deal must be backed by strength…

…we will go further to develop a ‘coalition of the willing’ to defend a deal in Ukraine…And to guarantee the peace. Not every nation will feel able to contribute. But that can’t mean we sit back. Instead, those willing will intensify planning now – with real urgency. The UK is prepared to back this…with boots on the ground, and planes in the air…together with others. Europe must do the heavy lifting…but to support peace on our continent, and to succeed, this effort must have strong US backing.”

Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron had made a similar point on security guarantees in the White House, saying that “American solidarity and support are indispensable”.

Geopolitical Realities

In theory, principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, as enshrined in the UN Charter, should take precedence over great power interests. But geopolitical realities often override idealistic principles. The UN, constrained by Russia’s Security Council veto, lacks enforcement mechanisms. Meanwhile, Europe remains militarily dependent on the U.S., though efforts are underway to change that.

The war in Ukraine has reaffirmed a harsh truth: the world is still shaped by hard power disparities. As Thucydides observed, “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” While many reject such realism in favour of a rules-based international order, Ukraine’s battlefield struggles have underscored that military force—not norms—seems to ultimately determines international outcomes.

Now, the U.S., the world’s leading military power, seeks a negotiated settlement. If no deal is reached, the alternative is likely an American withdrawal, which could severely weaken Ukraine’s position and reduce moral amongst its soldiers.

Ukraine’s Stark Choices

Ukraine faces a painful dilemma:

1. Engage in peace talks on uncertain terms—without firm security guarantees, risking future Russian aggression.

2. Continue fighting with reduced Western support—relying on Europe to fill the gap, despite its current limitations.

The second option, while possible, remains a high-risk gamble. Europe has increased defense spending and arms production, but its military capacity is still catching up. Ukraine has also strengthened its independent military capacity—producing drones, long-range strike weapons, and fortifications—but it remains outmatched by a larger, nuclear-armed Russia.

Meanwhile, despite heavy losses and economic strains, Russia has maintained its war effort, securing weapons from North Korea and shifting its economy toward a prolonged conflict. Moscow appears determined to outlast Ukraine, banking on Western fatigue and a fractured transatlantic alliance.

The Stakes for Europe and the Future of the Conflict

If Ukraine loses more territory in the coming months due to dwindling Western support, it could have far-reaching consequences not only for Kyiv but for European security as a whole. A Russian victory, even a partial one, could embolden further aggression and challenge the credibility of NATO’s deterrent. For European leaders, this crisis serves as a wake-up call—one that underscores the need to develop a more independent and robust security framework.

While a U.S.-brokered peace settlement may provide an exit from the war, its long-term viability remains uncertain. Would a ceasefire hold? Would Russia use it to regroup for future offensives? Would Europe have enough time to strengthen its military capability? These are the questions that Ukraine, Europe, and the U.S. must now confront.

The brutal reality is that no perfect solution exists. Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity remain at stake, but so do broader strategic calculations. What best serves the greater stability of the international system will also be a factor in peace negotiations.

Europe is facing a critical test: whether it can rise to the challenge of ensuring its own security or whether it must continue relying on the United States for leadership. Moreover, there is the question of whether the United States wants to continue fulfilling a leadership role in Europe and if Europeans are willing to continue to accept it. Either way, the coming months will be decisive for the future of Ukraine and the balance of power in Europe.