Security Week in Europe

Pepto-Bismol sales spike from Brussels to Munich: Part 1

Photo by Tonik on Unsplash

This is a busy week in Europe regarding security matters. The Ukraine Defense Contact Group met for the 26th time in Brussels on February 12th. The NATO defense ministers met in Brussels on February 13th in preparation for the NATO leader summit in The Hague in June. President Trump’s Ukraine peace envoy, retired Army general Keith Kellogg, is meeting with European leaders to discuss the proposed U.S. peace plan. The 61st Munich Security Conference, scheduled to take place in Munich's Hotel Bayerischer Hof from February 14th to 16th, will conclude the week's activities. As expected, the Ukraine War, which is approaching its third-year anniversary, is to be the central topic, as the policy positions from the U.S. are causing anxiety throughout parts of European NATO. With all the activities and the panicked headlines to feed into European anxieties, it is worth reviewing what is being said and not being said in this busy week at the meetings in Brussels.

The statements in both President Trump’s administration about NATO and burden sharing have been a cause of “clickbaity” headlines that feed into anxiety in European capitals and populations. This week, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth met with his NATO counterparts and personally conveyed the position of President Trump regarding European security and the Ukraine War. European leaders are concerned that President Trump will follow through with his threat from the first term and the campaign trail that the U.S. could reconsider its commitment to NATO, so the words of Secretary Hegseth were highly anticipated, as it would be the first overseas meeting with NATO allies after the inauguration.

During the Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting, Secretary Hegseth made a definitive statement about the U.S. commitment to European security and NATO participation. Secretary Hegseth stated, "The United States remains committed to the NATO alliance and to the defense partnership with Europe, full stop…” which is a clear and definitive statement of the U.S. intent and acknowledgment that European security and economic issues are still in the national interest of the U.S. All statements made about the new U.S. position on the Ukraine War and European security need to be placed into the context that the U.S. is not turning its back on Europe.

Mr. Hegseth then delivered the U.S. position on its relationship with Europe when he stated that the U.S. expected to end the “imbalanced relationship” regarding the U.S. providing security for Europe and that Europe must be willing to take on a greater and majority share of European security. A U.S. priority would be “empowering” Europe to take responsibility for its own security and reduce its dependency on the U.S. He added, quite bluntly, that European security is no longer the U.S.’s primary focus by stating, “…to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.” Secretary Hegseth explained that the U.S. needed to focus on Asia and countering a peer rival in China and securing its own borders.

The policy position communicated by Mr. Hegseth is not a surprise, as it has been the consistent policy position from the prior term and the campaign trail, but mainstream media on both sides of the Atlantic acted in shock by the statement, and some European leaders, with a flair for the dramatics, reacted to the narrative. The reaction was, as expected, an overreaction, but despite being a consistent U.S. position, it has been a position expressed by French President Macron starting in late 2023: that the U.S. had commitments outside of Europe and that Europe needed to be responsible for its own security. This was not a surprise announcement, and sober-minded leaders knew this would be the U.S. position.

Nor is this a new U.S. position, as President Obama, in 2015, made public his policy of the U.S. “pivot to Asia” to meet the challenges from China. After the Russian takeover of Crimea, the destabilization in the Ukrainian Donbas, and the cancellation of U.S. antimissile defense systems in Europe in 2009, President Obama established this policy position. Unlike in 2025, there was no European leaders’ dramatics over the issue of the U.S. pivot.

The European anxiety is that they are being called upon to provide security to a post-war Ukraine as part of a peace deal that has been moving at a faster pace since the American elections in November 2024. President Trump held a lengthy call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, calling on the war to come to an end. European leaders, like the prior administration, have largely shunned any contact with President Putin and attempted to discredit any leader that attempted to talk to the Russian leader, and that included the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz when he chose to hold a call with Russia and was quickly criticized for it. Secretary Hegseth also stated the U.S. position that “the bloodshed must stop, and this war must end…” at the Ukraine Defense Contract Group meeting.

In addition to the phone call and the statements that the war must end, the U.S. has asserted the position that the Europeans must provide the security and a “lion share” of the aid, which is not too far off the current arrangement as Europe provides a majority of the financial aid to Ukraine coming from Europe and a majority of the military aid coming from the U.S., and it would be expected the need for military aid, after the war ends, will no longer be needed at the current rate of consumption. Reducing military aid would put pressure on Europe to increase funding or encourage Ukraine and Europe to support ending the war sooner. Secretary Hegseth also stated that the U.S. would not support Ukraine's membership in NATO, which caused additional uproar in the press and some leaders in both Europe and Washington.

This ignores the fact that the Biden administration and Germany's current Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who is facing elections this month, publicly opposed NATO membership for Ukraine. This opposition to Ukraine is also considered a private position held by Hungary, Spain, Slovakia, and most likely Turkey. NATO membership is not a new policy of the Trump administration but U.S. and German policy since the war began in February 2022. Secretary Hegseth just reaffirmed longstanding U.S. policy over Ukraine’s NATO membership request.

Much of the consternation of Europe’s leaders is that they must solve and implement the security of a post-war Ukraine as the U.S. steps up the pressure to end the war. The European leaders, in reaction to this realization, have pushed back that they and Ukraine must be included in any peace talks to end the war. This is indeed the case, and President Macron articulated this stance during his meeting with then-President-elect Trump in November 2024. He stated that Europe must resolve this issue, while the U.S. should utilize its influence to persuade the Russians to participate in and facilitate the peace talks. This is occurring, just as outlined by the French president, and now some European leaders are joining a chorus that the progress must slow so they can have a say so at the bargaining table.

This outcry primarily serves as a delaying tactic, as the U.S. appears to be making progress on the diplomatic front with its proposed peace plan and its use of incentives and sanctions to encourage the Russians to engage in peace talks. Europeans and Ukrainians are intensifying their complaints about their exclusion from U.S. diplomatic efforts to initiate these talks, as this possibility becomes more likely. Some European leaders are asking to be included in talks and strategies to start the talks, which will slow down the diplomatic efforts, despite the fact they lack the ability to incentivize the Russians to the peace table, and they are well aware of that fact. Once the U.S. convinces the Russians to join in peace talks, it will then be the Ukrainians and Europeans responsibility to negotiate and implement that peace with the Russians, who, based on their outcries, are trying to avoid that responsibility.

President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have both stated the war must end, and if Europe wants to slow down progress toward starting peace talks, they will have to assume responsibility for providing a majority of the armaments. If the Europeans want Ukraine to have an equitable peace under the circumstances, which is only fair to the Ukrainian people who have suffered immensely, it must seek that peace while U.S. weaponry is strengthening the Ukraine battlefield position. Delay will only threaten Ukraine’s battlefield position and erode it in any future peace talks.

President Trump is taking a hard position that is pressuring the Europeans to join the peace talks quickly, and he is threatening the Russians as well by tightening the porous sanctions that allow Russia to continue to sell its oil to fund its war and increasing U.S. energy production to offset the throttling of Russian energy production from the world market. The European Union is apparently considering this tougher U.S. sanction threat as it is debating going after the illicit Russian oil tanker fleet that allows it to freely sell oil above the sanction-mandated price cap. The Ukrainians are also being pressed to agree to peace talks and drop unreasonable expectations on peacekeeping force size as the U.S. is openly discussing reducing its support for the war as well as requesting future U.S. aid to Ukraine be offset by rare earth minerals being provided to the U.S. from Ukraine in exchange. These conditions seem harsh, but they will also increase the long-term importance and security of Ukraine to the U.S., just as the location of European defense production facilities to Ukraine will increase the importance of Ukraine to the European Union.

The Trump administration, despite its direct messaging and taking a tact different from the prior administration, is listening to European concerns. Retired General Kellogg, the designee to lead the U.S. peace plan efforts, announced that the plans would be halted to allow additional consultation with European leaders. General Kellogg is in Europe this week ahead of the Ukraine contact group meeting and the Munich Security Conference, where he is expected to outline part of the proposed U.S. peace plan. General Kellogg specifically stated that he is pausing his efforts to reassure them that he is not pushing them out of the peace talks. He will hold individual meetings with NATO leaders to get their thoughts and feedback on the peace proposal as well as seek what they would like to contribute to the process.

Vice President Vance and General Kellogg will hold meetings with Ukraine President Zelensky in Munich this weekend, and they also stated a goal to have Ukraine in the best position for peace talks with Russia. President Trump also stated that he would most likely meet President Zelensky in Washington next week to further discuss the conversation with President Putin and further details on the peace process.

Despite the overly dramatized media reporting and politicians that feed into the narrative, the policy positions being set out are aligned with the position of the prior Trump administration and the campaign promises regarding NATO contributions and the Ukraine War. The discussions with France in November 2024 also align with these positions. This policy is definitely a departure from the prior administration, but despite the clear policy position, the Trump administration has clearly stated that the U.S. is not leaving Europe, and that European security is still in the U.S. interest, as well as being willing to delay progress on the peace proposal to gather consultation from European leaders.

The pivot to Asia, which has been much maligned by the media and some European leaders, is consistent with U.S. policy updates from 2015, which did not elicit complaints from Europe. The Trump administration's position on no Ukraine NATO membership is also consistent with U.S. policy since the Obama administration and has remained valid even with the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea and the start of the current war. The drama over the meetings this week, whether from media or politicians, largely seems performative and not substantive based strictly on who is delivering the message.

The follow-on to this article will review the results of the NATO Ministers’ Meeting and the Munich Security Conference.

If you like my content, please consider becoming a Substack subscriber to Pegasus Research or support me through Patreon, Buy Me A Coffee or Ko-Fi.

Patreon

Buy Me A Coffee

Ko-Fi

References:

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2025-02-13/What-can-we-expect-from-the-61st-Munich-Security-Conference--1AXA7ulFnDG/p.html

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/16/fact-sheet-advancing-rebalance-asia-and-pacific

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-envoy-halts-work-ukraine-peace-plan-consult-europe-2029458

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_232973.htm

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/12/nx-s1-5294478/hegseth-ukraine-nato-europe-trump

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy0pz3er37jo

https://theconversation.com/us-says-european-security-no-longer-its-primary-focus-the-shift-has-been-years-in-the-making-249813

https://www.statista.com/chart/28489/ukrainian-military-humanitarian-and-financial-aid-donors/