Speaking at the Munich Conference, still reeling from the blustering statements of US Vice-President JD Vance, EU High Representative Kaja Kallas issued an unequivocal warning to European governments: the time has come to lay the cards on the table and establish whether Europe is really ready to take direct responsibility for Ukraine’s security. Kallas’ request is part of a geopolitical context overturned by the two veritable ‘lightning bolts’ that shook transatlantic relations last Wednesday. On the one hand, Donald Trump had a telephone conversation with Vladimir Putin, laying the groundwork for immediate negotiations that could rewrite the security set-up in Europe and hypothesise a quick American withdrawal from the Ukrainian front. On the other hand, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth travelled to Brussels to warn his European partners that from now on they will have to ‘take charge’ of the continent’s conventional defence, confirming President Trump’s ‘America First’ approach even more forcefully.

The impact on Kiev and the role of Europe
While the US has reiterated that it does not want to renege on the NATO structure, the message from Washington has been unequivocal: ‘America will no longer be the crutch on which Europe relies for its security’. The telephone agreement between Trump and Putin, which envisages a possible compromise on the end of the war in Ukraine, initially ruled out direct participation by Kiev, heightening fears of a solution that would benefit Moscow and leave Europe with the task of setting up – and financing – any peacekeeping forces.

Against this backdrop, Kaja Kallas drew attention to the need for the EU to come clean: supporting Ukraine has so far meant sending arms and money, maintaining an indirect and limited approach at the margins of the war. Now, however, Trump’s and Hegseth’s call for a more pronounced involvement of European allies raises a crucial question: are we ready to send troops on the ground, or at least to design a peacekeeping force that is not crucially dependent on the United States?

A Europe torn between courage and prudence

The governments of the Old Continent are in fact far from united. While Germany and France seem more open to considering a military involvement – albeit in the form of European peacekeeping forces – Spain, Italy, Greece and many other states are showing strong reservations, also due to domestic public opinion, which is often hostile to an escalation that could risk crossing Moscow’s ‘red line’.

The recent frictions are made even more bitter by the words of Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary General, who reminded the European Parliament that defence budgets must be significantly increased, or else we will be totally dependent on the United States. “If you don’t, get ready to learn Russian or emigrate elsewhere,” he warned in a tone that was provocative to say the least. Defence Secretary Hegseth, for his part, was even sharper, calling on the allies to raise military spending to 5% of GDP and announcing that the US would focus on competing with China and protecting its borders, leaving Europe with the main burden of defence in its own geographical theatre.

Kallas’ challenge: a new era for EU foreign policy?

In a Europe where the popular consensus on a possible deployment of troops is anything but a foregone conclusion, Kallas’ appeal forces EU leaders to break out of their ambiguity. The question is no longer just whether to continue funding the government in Kiev, but whether to stand as guarantor of any peace agreement that, in Trump’s intentions, might not include full restitution of Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia after 2014.

The crux of the matter is that for the first time since the Second World War, the United States is questioning its role as ‘protector’ of Europe. Previous administrations, while asking the allies to ‘contribute more’, had never envisaged such a marked disengagement. The generation of American politicians who had lived through the Cold War and the Soviet threat have now disappeared or are out of decision-making roles, and Trump appears determined to deal with Putin and Xi Jinping as equals, relegating Europe to a secondary partner, nevertheless called upon to assume greater responsibility.

“If Europe does not wake up now,” Kallas insisted, “it risks remaining passive in the face of decisions that affect it closely, from Ukraine to its very survival as a global power.” Yet difficulties abound: from the continuous cuts in the armed forces recorded in recent years (in Germany, 1,537 soldiers left the service in 2023; in the UK, there was a loss of 1,100), to the absence of structured coordination for a common defence.

The new scenario, with Trump defining the war in Ukraine as ‘not an American conflict’ and envisaging ‘peace at any cost’ concerted directly with Putin, could push some European countries towards a paradigm shift. But this would require political will, financial resources and above all greater internal cohesion within the EU.

Will Europe be able to meet the challenge?
What is really at stake is the role the EU will want to carve out for itself on the international chessboard: a continent still protected by the American umbrella or an autonomous political-military bloc capable of taking bold initiatives. Ignoring Kaja Kallas’s appeal would mean admitting that, after 80 years of peace largely guaranteed by US military supremacy, the EU is not yet ready to take the reins of its own security into its own hands.

Instead, accepting the challenge could pave the way for a real union of intentions and forces, a quantum leap in the construction of a common European defence, finally able to act – and not just finance – in one of the most important conflicts of our time. To quote Winston Churchill, recalled in these very days by many, “Now is the time to choose, no longer to hesitate.”