Why Is US Siding With Russia On Ukraine War, Does This Mean Split With Europe? Explained
US’ foreign policy shift over the last few weeks has made Russians rejoice, but it would be a mistake to think that they now consider America an ally. For now, Putin is playing Trump carefully
Just one month into his presidency and Donald Trump has upended the US policy towards Russia on the Ukraine war, which is now in its third year, by voting against a UN Assembly General resolution that condemns Moscow.
After losing a vote on Ukraine in the UN General Assembly, the US won approval in the UN Security Council for its own resolution calling for an immediate end to the war, without mentioning the Russian invasion of Ukraine or assigning any blame.
related stories
Security Council resolutions, which have sometimes been flouted, are considered legally binding, giving added weight to Trump’s push to negotiate an end to the war.
In both the General Assembly and the Security Council, the US and some of its closest allies, including Britain and France, were in opposing camps on Monday – a remarkable shift between the countries that have often stood together.
Let us understand the UN resolution on the Ukraine, the shifting dynamics between US, Russia and Europe, what is United States’ reasoning behind its foreign policy reversal.
What Was The Face-Off At UN On Ukraine?
Ninety-three countries backed the General Assembly resolution, which notes “with concern the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation has persisted for three years and continues to have devastating and long-lasting consequences not only for Ukraine, but also for other regions and global stability" and “calls for a de-escalation, an early cessation of hostilities and a peaceful resolution of the war against Ukraine."
It also demands that Russia “immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders."
Among the 18 countries that voted against Ukraine’s resolution were Russia, the United States, Israel, Hungary, Haiti, Nicaragua and Niger.
The US had tried last week to persuade Ukraine to withdraw its resolution. When that failed, the US attempted negotiation with European allies. But the US told the allies on Friday afternoon that it will present its own resolution on Ukraine, a New York Times report said.
The US earlier failed on Monday to convince the General Assembly to pass its three-paragraph resolution, adopted by the Security Council, that did not call Russia the aggressor or acknowledge Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
The US resolution “implores a swift end to the conflict and further urges a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia." It mourns “the tragic loss of life throughout the Russia-Ukraine conflict" and reiterates “the principal purpose of the United Nations, as expressed in the United Nations Charter, is to maintain international peace and security and to peacefully settle disputes."
The Security Council adopted the US resolution with 10 votes in favour, while France, Britain, Denmark, Greece and Slovenia abstained. Russia voted in favour after failing to amend it and vetoing European bids to add language supporting Ukraine.
“This resolution puts us on the path to peace. It is a first step, but a crucial one – one of which we should all be proud," acting US Ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea told the council. “Now we must use it to build a peaceful future for Ukraine, Russia and the international community."
Security Council resolutions are considered binding, while General Assembly resolutions are not. However, General Assembly resolutions carry political weight, reflecting a global view on the war.
Since the Ukraine war began three years ago, the Security Council has been deadlocked by the power of Russia, one of its five permanent members, to veto any resolution there.
What Does US Siding With Russia Mean?
America’s foreign policy shift over the last few weeks has made Russians rejoice, but it would be a mistake to think that they now consider America an ally. The Kremlin’s foreign policy is defined in large part by its opposition to US interests, casting Moscow as a ‘significant other’ and independent pole in world politics.
President Barack Obama attempted a ‘reset’ in US-Russia relations at the start of his administration, looking for cooperation on Afghanistan, Iran and nuclear proliferation.
But such strategies failed mainly because Russia made it impossible to foster good relations: Russia worked against the Obama administration in Syria; Putin undermined US and European security with its annexation of Crimea in 2014, as per Chatham House – a British think tank based in London.
Donald Trump is a different leader. His mentality seems closer to Vladimir Putin – that the world should essentially be run by two or three leaders.
For now, Putin and his team are playing Trump carefully. This could help the Kremlin negotiate bilaterally with the US in neutralizing Ukraine, patch up Russian economy, temporarily, and divide the rest of Europe, at least for the short term.
Continued US-Russia animosity could also mean that if Trump is looking to delink Russia from China, it is unlikely to work. Instead, it will leave the US facing China alone — as Europe will be less likely to help.
Does US Policy Shift Mean Rise Of Far-Right In Europe?
Earlier this month, US Vice President JD Vance exhorted European leaders at the Munich Security Conference to stop shunning the extreme parties. He said German politicians should remove the “firewall" against working with the far-right and anti-immigrant Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party.
Billionaire Elon Musk, part of Trump’s DOGE, congratulated AfD leader Alice Weidel on party’s second-place showing in Sunday’s elections in Germany.
Then, further repudiating trans-Atlantic solidarity, Secretary of State Marco Rubio met the Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to discuss Ukraine’s future, keeping Ukraine as well as Europe out of the negotiation.
It seemed clear that the US intended to pursue a rapprochement with Russia, which would likely mean ending sanctions, persuading Ukraine into relinquishing occupied Ukrainian territory, and perhaps even guaranteeing Ukraine’s exclusion from NATO.
Calling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a “dictator," Trump has set the stage for satisfying Putin’s ultimate war aim: “removing Ukraine’s Jewish leader as a prelude to installing a Russian stooge on the pretext of denazifying the country", the New York Times opinion piece said.
Trump and his team have also been showing sympathies to far-right populist parties in Austria, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. In the UK, Musk is undermining the Labour Party in favour of right-wing Reform UK party.
“American administrations back then assessed the Soviet threat as too dangerous to indulge in political experiments. Today, the stakes are at least as high: If a bellicose Russia thoroughly infiltrated European politics, its far-right proxies could undermine the political structures that European nations have painstakingly built to prevent a regional return to authoritarianism," the NYT piece said.
How Have European Leaders Reacted To US-Russia New Bonhomie?
French Ambassador to the UN Nicolas de Rivière said, “There will be no peace and security anywhere if aggressions are rewarded, and if the law of the jungle wins."
“No one wants peace more than Ukraine, but the terms of that peace matter," UK Ambassador to the UN Barbara Woodward said. “Only a just peace, one that honors the terms of our charter, will endure."
Many European leaders worry that Trump’s desire to end the war quickly might lead to Ukraine accepting a temporary ceasefire that could allow Russia to rebuild its forces.
Following a European Union meeting of foreign ministers in Paris earlier this month, seven European countries said in a statement that “Ukraine and Europe must be part of any negotiations."
How Will This Affect Europe’s Defence?
Friedrich Merz, who is set to become Germany’s new chancellor after elections on Sunday, has expressed serious doubts about the US commitment to NATO. He fears that Trump may abandon NATO’s mutual defense pledge, leaving Europe vulnerable.
Since NATO’s inception in 1949, the US has been the de facto guarantor of European security against threats from first the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, and now Russia. NATO members had pledged to spend 2% of their GDP on defense by a deadline of last year.
While some have reached or exceeded that goal in recent years, others have fallen short. Now the Trump administration has asked for spending of 5% of GDP. (In 2023, the US spent equivalent to 3.4% of its GDP on the military), as per NPR.
A recent report by the European think tank Bruegel says that Europe would need around 300,000 additional troops, costing some $262 billion, to fully replace the US in defense matters. The think tank concluded that “the numbers are small enough for Europe to replace the US fully."
- Location :
- First Published: