After inflating war, US may abandon NATO and Ukraine to their own luck

The United States signaled a progressive removal of the War in Ukraine and charged from the European allies a greater protagonism in the continent’s security, in check the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) unit.

In a statement on the covenant meeting, on Wednesday (12), in Brussels, US Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, said that Ukraine will not return to the pre-2014 borders and ruled out the country’s adhesion to NATO. The statement has caused reactions from the Western Military Alliance, which seeks to contain the impacts of the American retreat while Europe is pressured to take on greater responsibilities.

During a Ukraine defense contact group meeting, an alliance of 57 countries sending military aid to Ukraine, Hegseth reiterated the need for a ceasefire and argued that Europe takes over the protection of the continent.

“As the United States prioritizes their attention to other threats, European allies should lead on the front line,” he said. He also suggested that if troops were sent to Ukraine as “peace forces,” they should act outside the scope of the alliance and without coverage of Article 5, which establishes the collective defense of the alliance.

In addition, the secretary stated that “returning to pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic goal” and that it pursues this goal only prolongs the conflict. The signaling that Washington will not guarantee Ukraine’s full territorial recovery represents a significant change in the official American position.

NATA reacts to American discourse

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte sought to minimize the impacts of the statement and reinforce the alliance’s commitment. “If Putin attacks NATO, the reaction will be devastating,” he said at a press conference before the Block’s defense ministers’ meeting.

Rutte also emphasized that European countries already fund most of military support to Ukraine and that the alliance would continue to ensure assistance to the Kiev government. “The allies not only fulfilled their commitments, but have overcome them. We provided more than 50 billion euros in 2024, more than half from Europe and Canada. ”

Hegseth’s statement, however, expands the pressures for Europeans to increase their military budgets. The US Secretary of Defense himself mentioned that NATO countries should raise defense spending from 2% to 5% of GDP, a request aligned with Donald Trump’s demands.

“Part of this is to talk frankly to its citizens about how this threat can only be faced with more defense investments. 2% is not enough; President Trump ordered 5%, and I agree. Increasing your commitment to your own safety is an investment for the future. An investment, as you said,, a secretary, in peace through strength, ”said the US Secretary of Defense, in explicit pressure to NATO countries.

Trump, Putin and Zelensky: The New Diplomatic Game

Hegseth’s statements occurred amid a call between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The two talked on Wednesday morning for 90 minutes and agreed to start negotiations for a ceasefire.

“Putin wants peace, Zelensky wants peace and I want peace,” Trump said after the call.

The conversation generated reactions in Ukraine, as Trump contacted Putin before communicating with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. In response, Zelensky has reaffirmed that he will not accept negotiations that exclude Ukraine. “There are no negotiations about Ukraine without Ukraine,” he said. Europe also manifested itself with the United Kingdom, France and Germany demanding to participate in any future agreement.

The contact between Trump and Putin also generated speculation about the terms of a possible agreement. Trump administration has suggested an economic commitment between US and Ukraine, involving the exploitation of Ukrainian mineral resources as guarantees to continue receiving American financial support.

US retreat weakens NATO?

The American stance puts a dilemma for NATO: Without the strategic presence of the US, Europe will need to deal with the developments of the war alone. This may mean independent European rearmament, leading to a strengthening of local military blocks and possibly a new dynamic of alliances.

Trump, by pressuring Europeans to be more costly and weakening the American commitment to NATO, can create a vacuum of power that will not necessarily lead to the dissolution of the covenant, but to a new balance of forces within it. US departure can be read both as a step towards European autonomy and as a risk of increasing militarization on the continent.

On the other hand, Trump’s approach with Putin raises questions about the real intentionality of the former president. Is US retreat one step towards NATO destabilization or just a pragmatic movement to reduce costs and prevent internal wear?

The future of war and NATO will depend on the upcoming decisions of European allies and Ukraine’s ability to remain relevant in negotiations without the guaranteed presence of the United States as the main guarantor of its defense.