National Security Journal The Treaty - ‘Europeanize’ the War: Trump’s New ‘Master Plan’ for Ukraine - Robert E. Kelly ByRobert E. Kelly Published 1 day ago (july 16, 2025)

 National Security Journal 

The Treaty

‘Europeanize’ the War: Trump’s New ‘Master Plan’ for Ukraine

Robert E. Kelly

ByRobert E. Kelly   Published 1 day ago (july 16, 2025)

Key Points and Summary on Ukraine and Trump – President Trump’s abrupt pivot to aggressively arming Ukraine is not about achieving a total military victory, but rather a calculated strategy to force a recalcitrant Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table.

-Frustrated by Putin’s refusal to engage in good-faith peace talks, Trump is now using the threat of advanced, long-range weapons—including potentially encouraging strikes deep inside Russia—as leverage.

-By making European allies pay for and transfer these weapons, Trump is also “Europeanizing” the conflict’s costs and risks. The new strategy aims to exhaust Russia into a stalemate, not necessarily defeat it on the battlefield.

Is Trump Really Shifting on the Ukraine War?

United States President Donald Trump just met the secretary-general of NATO in the White House and pledged substantial new assistance to Ukraine in its war with Russia.

The most important element of the latest aid is greater air defense, because Russia has been pounding Ukraine with its most punishing air strikes of the war.

But most controversially, Trump seems open to Ukrainian deep strikes into Russia, perhaps as far as Moscow and Saint Petersburg.

Now he would attempt to walk it back and say he was not in favor of attacks on Moscow or deeper into Russia. However, the threat remains.

Putin has hinted in the past that Western weapons used for such attacks would bring Russian retaliation against NATO itself.

Both the Trump and the previous Joe Biden administrations have resisted giving Ukraine long-range missiles because of that threat.

To date, Ukrainian attacks far inside Russia have been conducted with Ukraine’s drone weaponry. This may be changing.

Does Trump Now Accept that Putin Insists on Winning?

Trump, in his earlier efforts to end the war, offered Russian President Vladimir Putin generous terms—far better than Ukraine or America’s European allies extended.

There was much anxiety at the time that Trump was abandoning Ukraine. And Trump’s affinity for Putin is well-known.

However, Trump’s extension of terms, generous enough to provoke Western outrage, also served the useful purpose of measuring Putin’s commitment to the war. In offering Putin a limited military victory and re-integration into the world economy, Trump was giving Putin likely the best deal Putin would get from the West. If Putin were to reject this maximally generous deal, that would indicate that he was fully committed to his war goals, that he still believed in and wanted a complete military victory.

That is what Putin did. This rejection is compelling evidence that Putin will not stop until Ukraine is annihilated. Putin is a committed imperialist and, as a neighbor to NATO, a huge threat to the alliance. The only options left in the war, therefore, are to either accept a Russian victory or facilitate Ukrainian defense until Russia is exhausted.

Trump seemed extremely unwilling to accept those options. He believed that he had a personal relationship with Putin, which would lead to Putin’s compromise. He now appears deeply frustrated that his many phone calls with Putin have brought no flexibility.

European Ownership of Ukraine’s Defense

Trump’s pivot to air defense and possible later deep-strike for Ukraine was wisely accompanied by an insistence to the NATO secretary-general that Europe purchase these systems and then transfer them to Ukraine.

It is now widely accepted that Europe needs to do far more for its defense. It is capable of spending far more, and the US needs it to if America is going to confront China.

Deferring the strategic challenge to Europe is essential, too. If a Ukrainian deep strike with NATO weapons leads to Russian retaliation, then Europe needs to debate and handle that on its own. By insisting that Europe buy the weapons, Trump increases European ownership of any costs or blowback. The ultimate goal is for Europe’s defense industrial base to carry most of the military expenses, specifically, platforms and ammunition. Increasing European defense production is a crucial element in assuming greater responsibility for its own security needs.

America will likely still provide the logistical and intelligence support necessary to use these sophisticated weapons for years to come. American C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) capabilities are far ahead of those in Europe, and developing them on a European-wide scale will likely require greater European political integration.

Nevertheless, moving the defense production costs and strategic options burden to the Europeans is a good way to ‘Europeanize’ Ukrainian defense.

Deep Strike is Not a Turning Point

Trump accepting Ukrainian strikes deep into Russia with NATO weaponry will not change the military balance that much. Ukraine supporters have often claimed that a particular weapons system or policy, such as armor, a no-fly zone, or ATACMs, would be a game-changer. Even if that were once true, it is likely no longer the case. Russia has proven that it cannot be openly defeated on the battlefield without massive NATO involvement.

However, a potential deep strike option, coupled with air defense, does facilitate Ukraine’s ability to hold on. And that is more important than its inability to defeat Russia. So long as Ukraine survives, Russia is losing. The war has been massively costly for Russia—diplomatically, economically, and militarily. Even a stalemate worsens Russia’s long-standing decline in comparison to vastly wealthy states like the US or China. We must now wait for Russia to tire.

About the Author: Dr. Robert E. Kelly

Robert E. Kelly is a professor of international relations in the Department of Political Science and Diplomacy at Pusan National University. You can follow him on X: @Robert_E_Kelly. 

More Military

Russia’s Su-57 Felon Stealth Fighter Is a Waste of Rubles

America’s YF-23 Black Widow II Might Be Better Than F-22 

The Challenger 3 Tanks Could Be a Game Chang