As the sharp differences and tense exchanges between the US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the Oval Office on February 28 last year spread into the public domain, US-Europe differences and divisions have continued to dominate headlines worldwide. Added to this, relations between Europe and America remain strained with the US President prioritizing the takeover of Greenland, overshadowing the Ukrainian war. Although the crisis over Greenland appears to have been defused through a “framework deal”, Europe is likely facing more serious shocks to the trans-Atlantic relationship. The Wall Street Journal (Jan 22) wrote an editorial stating that the US President "backed down from his demands to own Greenland after financial markets, European allies and the US Congress raised objections.”
There is a new-found quest for independence in Europe. Leaders in Europe and Canada are reportedly thinking on reducing their countries’ economic, technological and military dependence on the United States.
Addressing the Munich Security Conference on February 13, 2025, US Vice President JD Vance focused on how the US no longer shares values with Europe’s leaders. He told them that the threat to Europe’s security is from within, and due to “the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, not from any external actor Russia, or China.” He also advised them to “embrace what your people tell you.” The US has been asking European countries to increase their defense spending and “be careful” about the continent's “big immigration problem.” He warned them, “No voter in this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants.” If this continues, Europe will face the “prospect of civilizational erasure,” warns the US National Security Strategy (NSS) released on December 4, 2025.
In the eyes of Deputy Secretary of State (2005-06) Robert B. Zoellick, the NSS “forges an old geopolitical-cultural amalgam of regional balances of power and calls for spiritual, familial and civilizational renewal. It foresees a competition among nation-states with spheres of influence, cultures of greatness, and nationalized economies, which make the strategy document reminiscent of rhetoric before World War I.” The document further argues that the larger issues facing Europe include activities of the European Union and other transnational institutions that erode political liberty and national sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent, generating social tensions, restrictions on free expression, declining birthrates, and the erosion of national identity and self-confidence.
Trace and test
In larger geopolitical calculations, it also seemed intended to convey that Europe can no longer rely on the perpetual comfort of the American security umbrella. Trump’s Europe policy, Walter Russell Mead writes, “is likely to have one of two outcomes. It could function as shock therapy, jolting Europeans into making the changes that could renew European strength and offering hope for a new and more realistic alliance. Or it could mark the beginning of the end of the trans-Atlantic community that gave Europe its longest era of relative peace since the peak of the Roman Empire.” Le Monde, a leading French daily carried an editorial which read, “The rift between Europe and the United States is deep and historic.” The daily referred to “uncertainty about the Trump team’s intention” toward “Ukraine and European security more generally.”
French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer during their visits to the White House were focused on securing American commitment to the security of Europe, should European nations choose to deploy troops in Ukraine. Ukraine wants to secure American protection against Russia in which US leadership has shown no interest. Ukraine holds the view that this should help it to reclaim its lost territories and its protection. Many analysts believe that European countries deploying peacekeeping forces in Ukraine without US support will not deter Russia from future military actions. Since Russia’s excuse to invade Ukraine was the eastward expansion of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the deployment of peacekeepers is viewed by Moscow as a precursor to NATO’s presence at its doors. Moscow has categorically rejected such a move.
There is no strategic coherence in Western narratives. Stark differences are noticed. Unpredictability has become a defining feature. The US made a radical departure as reflected in the UN votes on the war’s third anniversary, while Europe continued to maintain that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was an unprovoked act of aggression. Europe has shown its reluctance to engage with Russian representatives in diplomatic forums, portraying Russia as an irredeemable aggressor. The US and Russia met in Saudi Arabia to discuss “the framework for peace agreement and an initial ceasefire” without Ukraine’s representatives. Later, on March 11, the US and Ukraine met in Jeddah to discuss steps towards restoring durable peace for Ukraine. According to the Joint Statement issued by the State Department, Ukraine expressed “readiness to accept the US proposal to enact an immediate interim 30-day ceasefire.”
Recently held first trilateral talks between Kyiv, Moscow, and Washington in Abu Dhabi have been termed as “very positive, very constructive.” Former US deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz (2001-5) writes that President Trump has two choices for ending the war. One is the Chamberlain approach of 1938 “when the Czech Prime Minister was forced to cede his country’s territory in exchange for empty German promises.” The other is the Eisenhower pattern of 1953, “where a credible threat of force was followed by a strong posture.” Negotiating with Russia without Ukraine, Wolfowitz argues, follows the disturbing Chamberlain pattern.
China’s rise has changed the geopolitics of the 20th and 21st century. Because Russia was isolated from the international mainstream after its disintegration in 1991, it turned to military means to assert its power and interests. It moved closer to China, and signed a friendship agreement without limits on February 4, 2022. Moscow invaded Ukraine on February 24. Since then, Ukraine has been fighting with Russia-the world’s largest nuclear power with Western support. The Trump administration considers that continuing war has no purpose and diplomatic compromise is necessary. It thinks prolonging the war will only deepen Russia’s relations with China with no benefits to the West. Washington thinks wooing Russia to its side is to keep the Kremlin away from its alliance with China and other adversaries.
After the war began, there was a phase when the conflict in Ukraine was said to have united Europe, closely aligning it with the USA at the forefront. Now, however, discussions to stop the ongoing war seem to have fractured the alliance forged after World War II and post–1989 unity. Bloomberg writes, “The bottom line is that Europe still needs the US and knows it, but Trump’s America no longer sees a need for Europe.” Bridge-building is important to avoid the risk of division. The Transatlantic alliance, which provided stability and helped countries in Europe achieve prosperity, and predictability remains relevant in confronting shared challenges.
World leaders and chief executives gathered at the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos showed a growing shift among US allies and major economies away from deep economic and strategic dependence on the United States at a time when it appears increasingly unpredictable and confrontational. The 2025 and early 2026 witnessed unease with US tariffs and geopolitical moves. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke of a “rupture” in the world order, and said, “In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: compete with each other for favor or combine to create a third path with impact.” This third path is interpreted as hedging. As a middle power, the Canadian PM said his country plans to pursue “principled and pragmatic partnerships, with a focus on diversifying partnerships and reducing dependence particularly on trade, investment and technology. He cited the “Thucydides” concept of raw power in international relations. “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”
European and other global leaders emphasize protecting Western interests and dignity in a world where US policies appear increasingly unpredictable and Beijing offering them with the promise of trade partnerships. They speak of autonomy, and diversification over dependence and of reducing reliance on any single power. France, in particular, has long been an advocate of strategic autonomy.
The recent visit to China by the Canadian Prime Minister –the first in nearly a decade- is of great significance as it comes at a time when there is talk of Washington minus Europe-West. The China-Canada talks in Beijing focused on advancing bilateral ties to a new Strategic Partnership that is strong and enduring, aimed at delivering greater benefits to the two countries and their people. Multilateralism was seen as underpinning global security and stability, and the Global Governance Initiative put forward by President Xi was highlighted as important. Facing a fast-changing and turbulent world, Canada would like to intensify multilateral coordination with China to uphold multilateralism and the authority of the United Nations, and to promote international peace and stability. The Canadian PM has found China to be a “more predictable” partner.
These are turbulent and troubling times, especially for small and vulnerable nations. Global developments influence Nepal’s fate, just as events in Nepal reverberate far beyond its borders. Nepal’s significance far outweighs its size bearing implications for billions of people. Seated between two huge, and rising neighbors – India and China, with global aspirations – Nepal is at the crossroads of their competing and conflicting interests, further complicated by increasing involvement of Western powers-particularly the US. Navigating a complex geopolitical landscape shaped by a triangular contest is a formidable challenge for Nepal. The first and foremost necessity for Nepal is to effectively strengthen its domestic foundation – one that gives strength, instills confidence and enables bold decision making in the nation’s best interest.
(The author is a senior diplomat who served as Foreign Affairs Adviser to the prime ministers of Nepal and represented the country as Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations and major international organisations.)
