'It's terrifying': Ukraine and Europe on edge as Trump sides with Putin

Ukraine and Europe see a pattern, not one isolated statement. Trump has aligned himself with Putin, discussed lucrative economic deals, moved toward easing sanctions, and appeared to sidestep legislation he signed. His attacks on Zelenskyy have also become harsher. Together, these moves suggest Washington may value a quick agreement over Ukraine’s security.

The clearest examples involve practical support. Ukraine faced sudden restrictions on Starlink, controlled by Trump ally Elon Musk, and unexplained delays in US-made weapons deliveries. Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, reportedly floated releasing frozen Russian assets and restoring Russian gas supplies. Trump also endorsed a possible trilateral summit with Putin and Xi Jinping.

Europe fears these actions could reward Russia while weakening Ukraine’s negotiating position. Kaja Kallas said American negotiators had tried to push Ukraine toward surrender. European officials are urging continued support and hoping to keep peace talks from becoming a forced settlement on Putin’s terms.

Capitulation means surrendering or abandoning the ability to continue fighting, usually by accepting the victor’s demands. In Ukraine’s case, allies fear this would not be a balanced peace. It could mean accepting terms shaped by Moscow after military, political, or economic pressure has weakened Kyiv.

The article links that fear to reported US pressure. Kaja Kallas said American negotiators had been trying to push Ukraine into surrender for almost two years. A reported 28-point proposal called for Ukraine to cede territory, although the supplied article ends before listing all its terms. Delayed weapons and Starlink restrictions could further reduce Ukraine’s leverage.

This matters because an agreement accepted under pressure might leave Russia’s goals unresolved. The article says Putin wants to establish a greater Russia, while Europe fears transactional negotiations could divide Ukraine. European governments therefore say continued support is essential to prevent surrender on Putin’s terms.

The article identifies one clear concession: Ukraine would have to cede territory. It introduces the proposal as a US-backed 28-point peace plan and says it was reportedly drafted in Moscow before being submitted to Washington. That detail matters because it raises concern that the plan reflected Russian priorities.

The supplied text ends during the phrase “called for Ukraine to cede territory, limi”. Because the passage is incomplete, it does not reliably state the rest of the requested concessions. Any fuller list would go beyond the source. The article therefore supports only the territorial concession with certainty.

The broader context explains why this demand alarmed Ukraine and Europe. Kaja Kallas described US pressure as an attempt to push Ukraine toward surrender. European officials also objected to reported incentives for Russia, including releasing frozen assets and restoring gas supplies, fearing a deal could reward Moscow while weakening Kyiv.

The attack described in the article involved 21 Russian ballistic missiles launched at Kyiv. Three of those missiles carried cluster-munition warheads. The detail is significant because the article says those warheads were designed to maximize casualties and damage among civilians.

The strike came shortly after Steve Witkoff, a US special envoy, described Vladimir Putin as a “humanitarian”. That timing intensified criticism of the US approach. It also sharpened the contrast between Washington’s language about negotiation and Russia’s continuing military attacks on Ukraine.

The attack supports European fears that economic incentives alone will not change Putin’s objectives. The article says Russia wants to establish a greater Russia, while US negotiators have reportedly explored lucrative offers to move talks forward. For Ukraine, continued missile attacks make any pressure to accept Russian terms especially dangerous.

Delays in weapons, reduced intelligence, or restricted satellite communications could make Ukraine less able to defend itself. Modern combat depends on timely information, secure communications, air-defense supplies, and ammunition. Losing any of these can slow decisions and leave troops or cities more exposed.

The article gives two warning signs: unexplained delays in US-made weapons deliveries and sudden restrictions on Starlink, the satellite technology controlled by Elon Musk. If communications become unreliable, Ukrainian units could struggle to coordinate. If weapons and intelligence arrive late, commanders may have less warning of attacks and fewer tools to respond.

The article does not describe a confirmed collapse. One European official said Ukraine did not seem close to collapse, while also saying the situation was harder in practice. Still, reduced US support could weaken Kyiv’s negotiating position and increase pressure to accept a settlement favorable to Russia.

European governments are rejecting the proposals because they see them as costly rewards for Russia. Releasing frozen Russian assets could return financial resources to Moscow. Restoring Russian gas supplies could rebuild an important source of revenue and influence. Both steps might reduce pressure on Putin before Russia accepts a durable settlement.

The article says Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, reportedly floated both ideas as incentives. European governments rejected them. One European official argued that Putin is already extremely wealthy and wants to establish a greater Russia, rather than simply receive lucrative deals. Russia’s economic strain may explain its interest in new ventures, but it does not remove Europe’s concerns.

For Europe, the issue is also credibility. Granting major benefits while Ukraine is under attack could make negotiations look like payment for aggression. The article says Europeans are scrambling to restore peace talks while insisting that support for Ukraine remains even more important.

NATO is a military alliance whose members cooperate on defense and treat an attack on one member as a matter for the alliance. This definition comes from established world knowledge; the supplied article does not explain NATO. Membership can therefore serve as a long-term security commitment, while non-membership leaves a country dependent on its own forces and separate agreements.

Permanent renunciation would remove Ukraine’s option of joining the alliance. It could also make Ukraine’s security depend more heavily on political promises, weapons deliveries, and intelligence-sharing that might change with elections. The article already describes uncertainty over US weapons, Starlink access, and Washington’s negotiating position.

The long-term effect would extend beyond Ukraine. If Russia gained territory or influence without facing firm security limits, European governments might fear further pressure and feel compelled to expand support. The article says Europe believes supporting Ukraine is increasingly important, but it does not state that NATO membership is a formal term of the proposal.