The Russia-Ukraine conflict, ongoing since 2014 and escalating in 2022, has become a defining issue in European geopolitics. While former U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a deal to negotiate peace between Ukraine and Russia, European leaders have largely supported Ukraine’s continued military efforts, as evidenced by recent statements from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. On May 10, 2025, Merz revealed that Western allies, including Germany, the UK, France, and the U.S., have lifted restrictions on Ukraine’s use of long-range weapons against Russian military targets. This policy shift, combined with Merz’s visit to Kyiv alongside leaders from France, the UK, and Poland, signals a commitment to bolstering Ukraine’s military capabilities rather than pursuing diplomatic resolutions like Trump’s proposed deal.
Geopolitical Considerations
Countering Russian Influence
European leaders view Russia as a long-term threat to the continent’s stability. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 underscored Russia’s willingness to use military force to expand its influence. Allowing Ukraine to use long-range weapons, such as Germany’s Taurus cruise missiles, which can strike targets 500 kilometers away, reflects a strategy to weaken Russia’s military infrastructure directly. Chancellor Merz emphasized that Ukraine can now target Russian military facilities, a capability previously restricted to occupied Ukrainian territories. This shift suggests that European leaders prioritize diminishing Russia’s regional dominance over negotiating a deal that might legitimize Russian gains.
Strengthening NATO and EU Unity
The conflict has galvanized NATO and the European Union, reinforcing their roles as security and political blocs. Supporting Ukraine’s military efforts, including lifting restrictions on long-range weapons, strengthens the transatlantic alliance and demonstrates solidarity against authoritarian aggression. A deal brokered by Trump could risk fracturing this unity, especially if it involves concessions to Russia that undermine European interests. Leaders like Merz, who visited Kyiv with counterparts from France, the UK, and Poland, signal a coordinated European stance that prioritizes collective security over unilateral negotiations.
Economic Interests
Access to Ukraine’s Resources
Ukraine possesses vast natural resources, including rare earth minerals, natural gas, and fertile agricultural land. Some posts on X suggest that European leaders may be motivated by securing access to these resources, which could be jeopardized by a peace deal that strengthens Russia’s influence over Ukraine. While these claims are speculative and lack conclusive evidence, they reflect a sentiment that economic interests play a role in European decision-making. By supporting Ukraine’s military efforts, European nations may aim to ensure that Ukraine remains a sovereign partner aligned with Western economic interests rather than falling under Russian control.
Defense Industry Benefits
The prolonged conflict has spurred increased defense spending across Europe, benefiting domestic arms industries. Germany’s decision to allow Taurus missile deliveries, as signaled by Merz, aligns with this trend. The production and supply of advanced weaponry not only bolster Ukraine’s defense but also stimulate European economies through defense contracts. A peace deal that halts the conflict could reduce demand for such weaponry, potentially impacting the economic interests of defense manufacturers in countries like Germany, France, and the UK.
Security Concerns
Deterring Future Aggression
European leaders see Ukraine’s ability to strike Russian military targets as a deterrent against future aggression. Merz noted that lifting range restrictions on weapons allows Ukraine to “defend itself adequately,” arguing that a country limited to fighting on its own territory cannot effectively counter an attacker. This perspective reflects a broader European goal of establishing a strong precedent: aggression against sovereign nations will face significant consequences. Accepting Trump’s deal, which might involve territorial or political concessions to Russia, could embolden authoritarian regimes to pursue similar actions elsewhere.
Protecting Civilian Infrastructure
Merz highlighted Russia’s “ruthless” attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets, such as cities, kindergartens, hospitals, and care homes, contrasting this with Ukraine’s focus on military targets. By equipping Ukraine with long-range capabilities, European leaders aim to shift the balance, enabling Ukraine to disrupt Russia’s ability to launch such attacks. This focus on protecting civilian lives underscores the moral and strategic imperative driving Europe’s support for Ukraine’s war efforts over a negotiated settlement that might leave Russia’s military capacity intact.
Ideological Factors
Commitment to Democratic Values
Ukraine’s fight is often framed as a defense of democratic values against authoritarianism. European leaders, particularly in Germany, France, and the UK, view supporting Ukraine as a moral obligation to uphold sovereignty and self-determination. Merz’s assertion that “nobody can now reproach us for not having exhausted all the diplomatic means available” suggests that Europe has explored diplomacy but now prioritizes military support to protect these values. Trump’s deal, which could involve compromising Ukraine’s sovereignty, is likely seen as incompatible with this ideological stance.
Public and Political Pressure
Domestic political dynamics also influence European leaders’ decisions. Public opinion in many European countries strongly supports Ukraine, driven by media coverage of Russia’s attacks on civilian infrastructure. Leaders face pressure to take a hardline stance against Russia, making a deal that appears to appease Moscow politically risky. Merz’s public statements, made during a WDR discussion forum, reflect an effort to align with this sentiment while reinforcing Germany’s commitment to Ukraine.
Why Reject Trump’s Deal?
Lack of Trust in Trump’s Approach
Trump’s proposed deal, while not detailed publicly, is perceived by some as prioritizing quick resolutions over long-term stability. European leaders, wary of Trump’s transactional foreign policy during his presidency, may doubt the deal’s ability to secure Ukraine’s sovereignty or Europe’s interests. The coordinated visit to Kyiv by leaders from Germany, France, the UK, and Poland on May 10, 2025, underscores a preference for multilateral strategies over unilateral proposals.
Fear of Russian Non-Compliance
Even if a deal were struck, European leaders may lack confidence in Russia’s willingness to honor it. Past agreements, such as the Minsk accords, failed to prevent Russian aggression. By contrast, empowering Ukraine with long-range weapons offers a tangible means to pressure Russia militarily, reducing reliance on potentially unenforceable diplomatic agreements.
Strategic Timing
Merz’s announcement that future arms supply talks will remain confidential suggests a strategic approach to maintaining flexibility. European leaders may believe that now is not the time for negotiations, especially as Ukraine gains new capabilities to target Russian military infrastructure. This could shift the battlefield dynamics, potentially strengthening Ukraine’s position in any future talks.
European leaders’ preference
European leaders’ preference for supporting Ukraine’s military efforts over pursuing Trump’s proposed deal with Russia stems from a complex interplay of geopolitical, economic, security, and ideological factors. The lifting of restrictions on long-range weapons, as articulated by Chancellor Merz, reflects a strategic shift toward empowering Ukraine to counter Russian aggression directly. By prioritizing Ukraine’s ability to defend itself and deter future threats, European leaders aim to secure the continent’s stability, protect democratic values, and maintain economic and strategic advantages. While Trump’s deal may offer a path to de-escalation, it is viewed with skepticism due to concerns about Russian compliance and the potential compromise of Ukraine’s sovereignty. As the conflict evolves, Europe’s commitment to Ukraine’s war effort underscores a broader vision for a secure and democratic future.
