‘It’s all theatre’: How are Europe and the US pulling apart on Ukraine?

Since their summit with United States President Donald Trump in the White House on August 18, Kyiv’s European and regional allies have begun to nail down commitments to a peacekeeping force that would enter Ukraine after a ceasefire is reached in the war that Russia began three and a half years ago.

They aim to collect those commitments by the end of the week.

Europe is also pushing for further sanctions against Russia.

But the US is not on the same page on either issue.

Here’s what you should know:

What have countries promised?

So far, Estonia has said it was prepared to contribute at least a military unit to the peacekeeping force, and Lithuania had earlier announced it was ready to send an unspecified number of troops.

Romania said it would not send troops, but would make its airfields available as bases for F-35 air patrols enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Turkiye is considering sending troops, and would help de-mine the Black Sea, Ukraine’s ambassador to Ankara said.

Colonel Andre Wuestner, the head of the German Armed Forces Association, told the Reuters news agency that at least 10,000 troops would be needed for an extended period.

“It won’t be enough to have a handful of generals and smaller military units man a command post in Ukraine,” Wuestner said.

A top priority for the Europeans at the White House meeting was to commit Trump to being involved in such a force.

Trump had said on August 18 that the US would participate, but not with troops.

Last month, The Financial Times reported that US officials recently told their European interlocutors that the US would contribute “strategic enablers”, such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, command and control, and air defence assets.

Is a ceasefire and plan for a peacekeeping force viable?

“It’s all theatre. Every single European leader, including [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy, has had to find a way of keeping Trump on side,” said Keir Giles, a Eurasia expert at Chatham House. “They’ve succeeded in doing so, but it is at the cost of suspension of reality.”

The idea of a ceasefire is not only “entirely unachievable because [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is plainly not interested in ending the fighting”, Giles told Al Jazeera, but it is also undesirable.

“Everybody knows still that a ceasefire was among one of the worst-case possible outcomes for Ukraine before Trump arrived in office,” he said.

Ukraine and its European allies have repeatedly scoffed at a truce as a chance for Putin to reorganise his forces before attacking with renewed vigour. Trump, however, made a ceasefire his priority last February.

“The need to humour Trump, and to play along with the fantasy version of reality that drives the Trump world, means that they still pay lip service to these ludicrous ideas,” said Giles.

Will Trump play ball with Europe?

Since August 18, Europe and Ukraine have been working hard to pull Trump back in their direction.

After meeting NATO chief Mark Rutte in Kyiv on August 22, Zelenskyy said they had agreed on the necessity of “Article 5-like guarantees” operating under a blueprint that entails “a crystal-clear architecture of which countries assist us on the ground, which are responsible for the security of our skies, which guarantee security at sea”.

NATO’s Article 5 is the collective defence clause: the idea that an attack on one NATO member is treated as an attack on all.

Would Trump agree to ‘Article 5-like guarantees’, entailing an automatic defence mechanism that would bring NATO forces into conflict with Russia?

“Even when Trump is sounding positive about it, it’s incredibly vague, and it’s not entirely clear whether he means what he says,” said Giles.

“You can never be sure with Trump. He is changeable,” agreed political scientist Theodoros Tsikas, but he believes political reality prevents Trump from straying too far into Putin’s camp.

“First, he wants the Ukrainian war to be resolved, so he can proceed with an economic cooperation with Russia on energy and mineral wealth.”

Reuters revealed late last month that Russia and the US discussed business deals parallel to the issue of Ukraine’s disposition in a summit between Trump and Putin in Alaska on August 15.

“These deals were put forward as incentives to encourage the Kremlin to agree to peace in Ukraine and for Washington to ease sanctions on Russia,” five sources told Reuters.

They included ExxonMobil re-entering a joint investment with Russian gas giant Gazprom, Moscow buying US equipment for gas liquefaction, and the US buying Russian ice-breakers.

Secondly, said Tsikas, Trump “wants to free up US troops in Europe to recommit them to Asia”.

In performing this pirouette, “He can’t allow Ukraine to collapse in his hands, because he will have a huge political cost in the States – it will be a bit like [ex-US President Joe] Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. So even Trump has limits. The profile he sells is that of the winner. If he suffers a big defeat, that image collapses,” he told Al Jazeera.

For these reasons, Trump is willing to lend security to Europe, said Tsikas.

Is Trump offering Ukraine a deal?

This aid would not come for free, consistent with Trump’s policy towards Ukraine since assuming office.

The Financial Times reported that, in exchange for US security guarantees, Ukraine has offered to buy $100bn worth of US weapons, financed by Europe, which has already promised to buy 700 billion euros ($820bn) in US weapons for itself.

Will these extraordinary sums ever be spent? Zelenskyy says Ukraine needs US weapons worth $1bn to $1.5bn every month through the PURL (Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List), a NATO programme.

European countries have currently pledged $1.5bn in purchases of US weapons for Ukraine through PURL. All this is a far cry from the sums Trump is demanding be committed in memorandums, raising the question of whether they will ever be fulfilled.

Where does Russia stand?

A peacekeeping force would only come into play once Putin and Zelenskyy had agreed to a ceasefire.

Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov has confirmed twice in recent days that the meeting was not scheduled, despite Zelenskyy’s readiness.

He told his Indian counterpart on August 21 that such a meeting would happen when proposals were “well developed”.

Lavrov also told NBC that “no meeting is being planned”, but that “Putin is ready to meet with Zelenskyy when the agenda is ready for a summit. This agenda is not ready at all”.

Lavrov wanted Zelenskyy to align himself with positions he claimed Putin and Trump agreed to in the meeting in Alaska.

“It was very clear to everybody [that] there are several principles which Washington believes must be accepted, including no NATO membership… [and] discussion of territorial issues, and Zelenskyy said no to everything.”

Russia and Europe have fought to bring Trump closer to their positions. Putin persuaded Trump that no ceasefire was necessary for peace talks, and tried to dissuade Trump from backing sanctions, which Europe supports.

Zelenskyy told Ukrainians in an evening address on Tuesday, “The only signals Russia is sending indicate that it intends to continue evading real negotiations. This can be changed only through strong sanctions, strong tariffs – real pressure.”

On August 22, Trump reiterated a self-imposed two-week deadline before he makes a decision on sanctions against Russia. He told reporters in an Oval Office briefing, “I think in two weeks, we’ll know which way I’m going.”

Trump first mentioned that deadline to Fox’s Sean Hannity in the wake of the Alaska meeting with Putin on August 15.

But the tug-of-war means Trump is still midway between Europe and Russia, and not the staunch European ally his predecessor, Biden, was.

European leaders see the Russian aggression in Ukraine in purely political and security terms, and are more sceptical of Russia’s motives.

“I don’t see President Putin ready to get peace now,” French President Emmanuel Macron recently told NBC. “As long as President Putin and his people will consider they can win this war and get a better result by force, they will not negotiate.”