The crisis has benefited the US in the short term, but risks eventially severing transatlantic ties in the long run
The era of monolithic “Atlantic solidarity” is over, and Russia has been a major catalyst for this erosion. The United States has emerged as the primary beneficiary of the Ukraine crisis. Relations between Russia and Western Europe have been disrupted, energy infrastructure has been undermined, and the EU has been compelled to overpay Washington for military and energy supplies. However, the Americans will derive limited benefit from a deep normalization of relations: ties with Moscow will remain distant, and the tools for pressuring its European NATO allies will weaken.
The interaction between the US and its European “friends” has long been viewed as a unified “transatlantic project,” based on a shared vision of security and common values. But the rise of incoming US President Donald Trump exposed fractures within this construct. His November election win was warmly welcomed by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who anticipated economic gains for his country. In contrast, French President Emmanuel Macron expressed concerns and urged EU partners to consolidate against the unpredictability of Trump’s foreign policy, calling for a more united and sovereign Western Europe.
Trump’s provocative actions, such as the proposal to annex Greenland, part of NATO ally Denmark, or his threats to withdraw the US from the bloc if European countries do not increase their financial contributions, were not mere eccentricities. These statements represented a departure from the traditional American strategy of acting in cooperation with allies and offering a framework of engagement where loyalty to Washington came with shared benefits for all parties.
It has become clear that the US now prioritizes its national interests above the collective goals of the Euro-Atlantic community.
For decades, the West pursued the idea of an expanding “golden billion,” where the transatlantic project sought to absorb more states through economic integration and the spread of liberal democratic values, or military alliances. The goal was to showcase a high standard of living, ideological greatness, and technological superiority to the rest of the world, gradually integrating them into the Western order. Russia’s “red lines” and its push for a multipolar world order – rooted in cooperation with countries of the “world majority” – significantly limited this expansion. A clash became inevitable: the West’s support for nationalist forces in Kiev was aimed at swiftly integrating Ukraine into Euro-Atlantic structures. Moscow, however, saw this as a direct threat to its security.
Today, Trump’s rhetoric has reinforced a “every nation for itself” mentality among European leaders, pushing them toward national self-interest. Political forces in Germany, Italy, and Hungary are increasingly questioning the unconditional support for Washington’s policies. Western Europeans are becoming less enthusiastic about sanctions and military aid to Kiev, while major EU players are calculating how to ensure their own security and economic stability. Although these sentiments are not yet mainstream among Western elites, voices are growing louder that blame the West for deepening the Ukrainian crisis and advocate for rapprochement with Russia.
The era of monolithic “Atlantic solidarity” is undeniably over, and Moscow has played a key role in this transformation.
Meanwhile, Kiev itself has refused to negotiate with Russia and rejected the settlement formula discussed during the Istanbul talks. Vladimir Zelensky’s political survival depends on continuing the war, regardless of the toll it takes on Ukraine.
This impasse, coupled with America’s strategic gains from the conflict, makes a meaningful resolution unlikely in the near term.
The root of the Ukrainian crisis lies in the collision of two grand geopolitical projects: the rigidly homogeneous transatlantic solidarity of the West and Russia’s vision of a multipolar world that embraces the natural diversity of national identities. Ukraine, especially after the 2014 Maidan coup, has become the central battleground for this competition, a test of which system is more durable and adaptable and which vision better understands global realities and offers the most effective solutions in a world growing increasingly complex and diverse. These questions remain unresolved.
Ukraine has become both a key instrument and a weak link in the American strategy. Washington’s attempt to use Kiev as leverage against Moscow has faced staunch resistance from Russia and growing divisions within the transatlantic alliance. The outcome of this struggle may lead to a broader transformation of international relations, with a shift toward a multicentric world order and a rethinking of the US role in Europe.
This article was first published by Valdai Discussion Club, translated and edited by the RT team.
