How Russia-Ukraine war is Europe’s battle for relevance

For more than three and a half years, Europe has lived in the shadow of the Russia-Ukraine war. The invasion that began in February 2022 shattered decades of assumptions about stability on the continent. It forced Europe to scramble for energy security, spend billions on defence, and rethink the very foundations of its alliance with the US. Now, as negotiations between the US and Russia gather momentum, Europe faces its sternest test since the Cold War: how to secure peace in Ukraine without surrendering its principles. How to handle an unpredictable US President, besides redefining Nato for a new era.

Negotiations at the Crossroads

Talks between Russia and the US have reopened a difficult reality. Russia has hinted it may accept Nato-style “security guarantees” for Ukraine, but with strings attached: recognition of Russian control over Donetsk and possibly other occupied regions, and guarantees that Ukraine will not host Western forces on its soil. Donald Trump, eager to present himself as a dealmaker, has warned Kyiv that Crimea and Nato membership may be permanently off the table. We also need to recall that Trump is looking for early results to influence his Nobel Prize credentials.

More from Opinion

Sergio Gor’s senate hearing signals the future of Indo-American ties How Trump’s ‘War on Drugs’ buildup against Venezuela has a hidden agenda

For Europe, this is alarming. Since 2014, the EU’s guiding principle has been “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”. Any settlement imposed from above risks Ukraine being denied dignity, sovereignty and security. While the US and Russia may see transactional value in carving out zones of influence in the region, Europe knows it will ultimately bear the unpredictable effects.

The Stakes for Europe

Europe has paid dearly for this war. Billions of euros have gone into arming and sustaining Ukraine, while European industries have weathered higher energy costs and disrupted trade. The entire ammunition arsenal of Nato countries has been fired by the Ukrainian Army. Yet the alternative—a Russian victory or even a “frozen conflict” on Moscow’s terms—is perceived as far worse. Scenarios:

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

How army remains Pakistan’s biggest business house

60 years on, why 1965 India–Pakistan war still matters

If Russia consolidates its hold over Ukrainian territory, it could later push further, testing Nato’s eastern flank from the Baltics to Poland. For countries like Estonia or Lithuania, the idea that Ukraine could be sacrificed sets a dangerous precedent, at least for the long term.

Peace would allow Europe to redirect defence spending toward rebuilding while reopening trade routes through the Black Sea and reducing reliance on costly alternatives to Russian gas. However, a fragile peace won’t do; the risks would be too many.

Europe’s post-Cold War identity has rested on enlargement, integration, and the promise of stability for its eastern neighbours. Ukraine embodies that project. Losing Ukraine to Russian dominance would stymie Europe’s strategic vision.

Internal European Divisions

Europe’s unity is real but fragile. Eastern members such as Poland, the Baltic States, and the Czech Republic insist that only full Ukrainian sovereignty can guarantee continental security. Germany and France, though supportive of Kyiv, also weigh domestic economic pressures and the fear of escalation. Higher energy prices, inflation, and public fatigue over the costs of war worry these nations. Their voters are more cautious about an open-ended conflict. Southern European states worry about Mediterranean security being overshadowed.

This diversity of perspectives complicates Europe’s bargaining position. It needs political clarity and economic sustainability to ensure credibility. Without a coherent “European line”, Moscow will exploit divisions, and Washington under Trump may pursue bilateral arrangements that sideline Europe.

Handling Trump: Between Dependency and Autonomy

The Trump factor looms large. Nato remains dependent on US military power, especially in nuclear deterrence, long-range strike, and logistics. Any peace settlement will inevitably involve Washington. But Trump’s transactional approach unnerves Europeans. His open willingness to entertain Russia’s red lines—warning Kyiv that Nato membership is unrealistic, hinting that Crimea is gone for good—reminds Europe that the United States and Europe do not always share identical goals. This was expected with the return of Trump 2.0.

Europe’s emerging strategy is two-pronged:

· Engage Washington to keep the alliance intact and avoid a public rupture that Moscow could exploit.

· Build strategic autonomy through major defence initiatives such as the €800 billion “Re-arm Europe” program, Franco-British leadership in the “Coalition of the Willing”, and the willingness to provide peace enforcement troops if necessary; the last being a long shot.

This does not mean breaking with the US—but it does mean preparing for scenarios where Europe must act independently to defend Ukraine and its own security.

Nato’s Crossroads: Enlargement or Reinvention?

Nato is also at an inflection point. Ukraine’s entry has been one of the most divisive questions since the war began. For Eastern Europe, membership is imperative for security; only Article 5 (Collective Defence) can truly deter Russia. For Trump and some Western capitals, however, it is a step too far, risking direct confrontation with Moscow.

The likely compromise is Nato-like guarantees without full membership. These could include long-term Western training missions, pre-positioned weapons, and financial commitments to sustain Ukraine’s defence. But these are second-best solutions. Without Nato’s formal umbrella, Ukraine will remain vulnerable to Russian pressure.

At the same time, Nato itself may be transforming into a more European-anchored alliance. If US commitment weakens, Europe will need to invest far more heavily to preserve deterrence. Nato could survive—but as a dual-pillar structure (US and European pillars), with Europe finally carrying much of the weight.

Russia’s Calculus and Europe’s Response

Russia’s fixation on Donetsk and its absolute red line on Crimea reveal its negotiating posture. Donetsk offers Moscow strategic depth, resources, and symbolic value. Crimea, with Sevastopol and the Black Sea Fleet, is existential. Europe understands this but cannot accept a settlement that leaves Ukraine amputated and humiliated.

The European line toward Russia is likely to solidify around three principles:

Firmness. Continued refusal to recognise Crimea’s annexation or other land grabs.

Conditional Engagement. Openness to ceasefire arrangements, but only with strong enforcement—potentially by European peacekeeping troops. The acceptance of the UN flag is not known.

Long-Term Containment. Even if a truce is struck, Europe will prepare for prolonged rivalry with Moscow, embedding Ukraine in the EU’s political and economic structures while isolating Russia diplomatically.

It is doubtful whether this approach will guarantee any agreement or peace.

Future Scenarios

Several pathways lie ahead:

· Ukraine retains sovereignty but cedes de facto control over some territories. Europe provides security guarantees and reconstruction funds. This is the most likely near-term scenario.

· If talks succeed but mistrust persists, Europe may deploy troops to enforce borders and guarantee Ukrainian security—testing its willingness to put lives on the line. Russia would not be happy with this.

· A longer-term goal, membership of Nato, resisted by Russia and contested within Nato, but still the ultimate security aspiration for Kyiv and its strongest allies. Appears highly unlikely.

· US-Russia Deal over Europe’s Head. The nightmare scenario for Brussels is where Trump and Putin strike a deal that Europe must live with. Preventing this outcome is driving Europe’s urgency. It’s a likely scenario considering Trump’s maverick decision-making.

Europe’s Gamble

Europe today stands at a strategic crossroads. It must hold firm on Ukraine’s sovereignty, invest in its own defence, and manage an unpredictable US—all while facing down a Russia determined to redraw Europe’s map. The gamble is immense. If Europe overplays its hand, it risks escalation; if it underplays, it risks irrelevance.

Yet inaction is not an option. The war in Ukraine is not just about territory—it is about the very architecture of European security. It’s the most contentious part of post-Cold War dynamics. A peace imposed by outsiders, at the expense of Ukraine, would condemn Europe to instability and undermine the EU’s identity as a project of integration and resilience. The outcome of current negotiations will ultimately define not just Ukraine’s future but Europe’s place in the world for decades to come.

For India, these developments hold significant lessons. As Europe grapples with questions of autonomy, alliance management, and long-term rivalry with Russia, New Delhi must view the Ukraine war through the prism of its own multilateral balancing act. India has consistently maintained relations with Russia while deepening ties with the US and Europe, and this multipolar approach remains central to its foreign policy.

A fragmented Nato or a more Europe-centric security architecture will affect the transatlantic consensus on global issues, from technology controls to Indo-Pacific strategy. For India, the key is to reinforce its role as a credible multilateral actor—supporting sovereignty and rules-based order, while carefully preserving its strategic autonomy. Just as Europe is recalibrating its relationship with Washington and Moscow, India too must ensure that in any emerging security order, its voice is heard and its interests safeguarded.

The writer is a member of the National Disaster Management Authority. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.