Donald Trump recently announced that he had discussed with Vladimir Putin the “immediate” opening of “peace” negotiations in Ukraine. The call between the two heads of state reportedly included discussion not only of opening of negotiations to end the nearly three-year war, but also plans for official visits by both of them to each other’s countries. Although Trump immediately announced that he would call Volodymyr Zelenskyy to inform him of the discussion, it is not insignificant that he excluded European leaders from these exchanges, at least initially. Everything seems to indicate that he is sending a message to the EU powers: the time when the United States bears the greatest burden of the war in Ukraine and, above all, of the security of the European continent, is over.

But the message is also sent to Trump’s social and political base. As in the case of the genocidal war in Gaza, Trump must maintain his image as a “providential man” capable of ending major international conflicts. However, these negotiations between Trump and Putin can only yield a reactionary result. It remains to be seen at what pace these negotiations will open and what their concrete content will be, but it is very likely that they will not resolve any structural contradictions that led to this war.

It should not be forgotten that Trump, during his first term, largely contributed to the militarization of Ukraine and to the policy of encirclement of Russia, which was later used as an argument by Putin to justify his reactionary war. From this point of view, the first thing to say is that the workers, the youth, and all the oppressed cannot trust these capitalist leaders to truly put an end to the catastrophic wars. As in the case of Palestine, the negotiations between Putin and Trump could lead to a precarious peace situation, pushing for the militarization not only of Ukraine but of the entire continent, thus preparing new wars in the not so distant future.

Through this policy, Trump could also be seeking a form of rapprochement with Russia with the aim of distancing it from China and potentially using it against Beijing. This is a policy called for by some analysts of U.S. imperialism who are critical of the strategy towards the war in Ukraine. However, it is difficult to say at this stage whether this is really Trump’s intention and even whether such a policy could work. The United States has demonstrated on numerous occasions that it is prepared to betray its commitments, including to its partners, in order to defend its own interests. There is therefore great mistrust of the United States, particularly on the part of states considered by U.S. imperialism as “enemies of the world order” that it dominates (China, Russia, Iran, among others).

In any case, for many, especially in Europe, opening negotiations to end the war on Moscow’s terms would be the equivalent of handing Russia a victory. Trump is aware of this. But he seems to want to “win with Putin.” That is, to ensure that the peace agreement is seen as a defeat for Ukraine and the EU but not for the United States or even for NATO as a whole. Washington has obtained important tactical and strategic advances during this war, such as distancing Germany from Russia, the general increase in military spending by the European NATO powers, and obtaining shares of the European energy market, facilitated further by the sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines.

Trump could seek to impose a form of détente with Putin without a return to the pre-2022 situation. For that goal, it would be important to maintain a form of “frozen” conflict between Ukraine and Russia, forcing the EU to become the guarantor of Ukraine’s security in the last instance. This could translate into sending European troops to the country. In other words, European armies would be stationed directly on the border with Russia in a non-NATO country. Pete Hegseth, the U.S. Secretary of Defense said it clearly on Wednesday in Brussels: “any security guarantee should be backed by competent European and non-European troops (…) the troops deployed in Ukraine should not be part of a NATO mission, nor be covered by the mutual defense clause of Article 5 of the alliance.”

In this way, the Trump administration is cooling Kyiv’s ardor regarding its claims to become a NATO member while pressuring European powers to increase their military spending even more. This militarization could give weight to certain states like Poland, which does not hide its ambitions to become a military power on the continent. But France could also reposition itself as a key player given its military weight within the EU.

An agreement in which Russia could appear victorious would only fuel the propaganda of those who present Moscow as a threat to the entire EU, which during this war has proven to be quite false (Russia was not even able to defeat Ukraine militarily). This discourse serves the interests of those who want the militarization of Europe, including the United States. What is certain, however, is that this situation reveals the extent to which the imperialist powers ultimately depend on the United States for their security, which will be a source of instability within the EU powers but also externally. This situation could also constitute an additional factor in strengthening nationalist currents while the EU is paying for decades of subordination to U.S. imperialism in terms of security.

Ukraine, the other big potential loser in these negotiations, risks having to cede large chunks of its territory to Russia. Zelenskyy has little choice but to accept Trump’s plans. This is the result of his policy of submission to the imperialist powers, starting with the United States. During the war, Zelenskyy and his defenders talked a lot about defending Ukrainian self-determination against Putin, but in reality he was transforming Moscow’s grip into that of the Western imperialists. His fight was never for real Ukrainian independence, which can only be achieved through a merciless struggle against capitalist interests in the country and against imperialist influence and oppression.

In this context, Zelenskyy will now have to manage a potential rise in political tensions in Ukraine. Martial law and war allow him to remain at the head of the country even though his mandate officially ended in May last year. But the closer we get to the end of the conflict, the more internal political tensions risk developing, especially if the peace agreement is perceived as too unfavourable to Ukraine. Far-right currents could go on the offensive, with the legitimacy of having taken part directly in the fighting.

Ukraine will most likely emerge from the war with a large part of its territory amputated, in debt, even more subject to foreign powers, but at the same time totally militarized. A large part of its population is still abroad and another is displaced within the country. It is increasingly clear that it will never be able to regain true self-determination by the hand of imperialism. Trump has just brutally confirmed this.

The current negotiations open the way to a temporary freeze of the conflict according to the interests of U.S. imperialism. The European imperialist powers could be led to play a central role in the militarization of Ukraine, including by sending troops into Ukrainian territory. A situation that recalls the urgency of a policy independent of the Western imperialists and NATO and in defense of the self-determination of Ukraine. The only way to this outcome is that of a socialist, workers’ and independent Ukraine. The European and international workers’ movement must prepare for the struggle against the future militarization tendencies on the continent.

Originally published in French on February 12 in Revolution Permanent

Translated by Samuel Karlin