Ukraine: Caught Between NATO And Trump – OpEd
Key Takeaways:
Trump’s efforts to broker peace in Ukraine have stalled, as he underestimated NATO’s deep strategic commitment to prolonging the conflict and securing a Ukrainian victory rather than accepting any settlement favorable to Russia.
NATO is invested in long-term support for Ukraine through massive multi-year aid (€70 billion in 2026), shifting to a “NATO 3.0” model with European-led financing, domestic Ukrainian production of advanced weapons, and integration into the alliance’s defense industrial base.
The article argues that NATO’s Cold War origins and eastward expansion (viewed by Russia as existential provocation) have shaped its current stance, making compromise difficult and leaving Ukraine to bear the human and economic cost of the unresolved conflict.
In what some media touted as a historic encounter, U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy held a face-to-face meeting in Rome following the funeral of Pope Francis on April 26, 2025 in which both sides characterized the un-aided, one-on-one discussion on the Ukraine war as productive. At that time, the two leaders discussed key issues on the war, including a potential ceasefire, strategies for achieving peace, and competing proposals for ending the conflict.
The end to Europe’s bloodiest war since the end of the 2nd World War appeared then to be in sight.
One year on, President Trump, after repeatedly stating his optimism that a peace agreement is attainable and just around the corner, appears to have given up on his efforts.
Trump’s error appears to have fundamentally underestimated NATO’s role in the war and to overestimate America’s position as a global hegemon in being the key player in European geopolitics.
This approach contrasts sharply with NATO’s own strategic calculus, which points to a deep-seated investment in supporting Ukraine for the long haul, not only to prolong the war, but to ensure a Ukrainian victory and prevent what appears a Russian one.
Why NATO Is Invested In Ukraine War Continuation
That NATO is invested in the continuation of the war can be deduced from the following evidence :
· A Long-Term Strategy for Ukrainian Victory: NATO is moving from “sporadic support for Kyiv towards a more industrialized, prolonged war strategy”. The goal is to ensure Russia does not win, reflecting a view that a Russian victory could embolden further aggression.
· Massive, Multi-Year Financial Commitment: At the 2026 Ankara summit, NATO pledged €70 billion ($82.1 billion) in military aid for Ukraine in 2026, with a commitment to sustain at least equivalent levels in 2027. This long-term planning signals a commitment to outlast Russia.
· Shift to “NATO 3.0”: NATO is shifting toward a model where “European allies and Canada are now financing the majority of bilateral and multilateral security assistance”, aiming to reduce reliance on the U.S. and build a sustainable European defense industrial base.
· Deep Integration of Ukraine: By allowing Ukraine to produce Patriot missile systems domestically, NATO is integrating Ukraine into its defense industrial complex, making support more self-sustaining and less susceptible to political shifts.
This investment is driven by the belief that supporting Ukraine is in NATO’s “direct interest” and that the war is not a temporary crisis but a “long-term project with multi-year budget planning”.
NATO’s Cold War Origins
Just as if not more important in understanding NATO’s perspective of the war, and why it will continue to oppose Trump’s effort to end it, is discernible by burrowing into the origins of the organization and its past history. This backdrop, missing from most media commentaries and analysis, helps explain why the supposedly defensive alliance is opposed to any peace settlement with Putin’s Russia, except on its own terms.
NATO was established in 1949 with three core goals: deterring Soviet expansionism, preventing the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe, and encouraging European political integration.
To counter the Soviet Union, Article 5, a collective defense clause declaring that an attack against one member is an attack against all, has been in place. This anti-Soviet positioning in European geopolitics was shaped through a series of specific historical developments and doctrines that go back 80 years. It may have mutated beyond its initial objectives but is still a cardinal principle.
In 1946, U.S. diplomat George Kennan’s “Long Telegram” argued that the Soviet Union was inherently expansionist but could be contained through firm, long-term strategic resistance. This formed the ideological basis for NATO’s defensive perimeter. The 1948 communist coup in Czechoslovakia and the Soviet blockade of West Berlin convinced Western European nations and the United States that a unified military alliance was necessary to prevent the USSR from dominating the continent.
In 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty was agreed to by 12 founding nations, and formalized a security umbrella backed by the United States. This effectively linked North American military power to Western European defense, deterring conventional Soviet superiority.
In response, the Soviet Union and its Eastern European ally states formed the Warsaw Pact in 1955 solidifying the Cold War division of Europe which continued until the breakup of the Soviet Union.
NATO Expansion and the Ukraine Red Line
Instead of dissolving after the Cold War, NATO has continued to expand its membership and mission. Tensions escalated as NATO moved into former Soviet states and intervened in the Balkans. Russia’s failed attempts to join NATO in the early 1990s suggested that the alliance was, in some views, intended to exclude Russia.
The 2008 Bucharest Summit, where NATO declared Ukraine and Georgia would eventually become members, is frequently cited as the point where the die was cast. Another Russian allegation – not refuted by official channels – is that Western leaders gave informal assurances to Soviet President Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward” after German reunification. From Moscow’s view, NATO’s subsequent enlargements (to 32 members by 2024) broke this promise and acted as a direct provocation. Russians have seen this as an “existential threat” rather than an act of self-defense.
President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly asserted that Ukraine is a “red line,” a loss that would fundamentally shift the strategic balance of power and one that would be an obstacle rather than a positive to creating a new, inclusive European security order. It is a view that Trump appears to endorse
Ukraine Victory At Whose Cost
Whichever external forces and factors will be instrumental in helping bring an end to the war, even the staunchest of NATO’s proponents cannot dispute the war as the tragic conclusion of a decades-long process where a triumphant NATO failed to build a pan-European security system, instead expanding to the point where Russia felt compelled to act.
Unfortunately it is Ukraine that has, and will continue, to pay the price for the failure to end the war.
About Lim Teck Ghee
Lim Teck Ghee PhD is a Malaysian economic historian, policy analyst and public intellectual whose career has straddled academia, civil society organisations and international development agencies. He has a regular column, Another Take, in The Sun, a Malaysian daily; and is author of Challenging the Status Quo in Malaysia.
View all posts by Lim Teck Ghee →
Kyiv hit with deadly strikes after attack on Russian e-commerce giant
Kyiv (Ukraine) (AFP) – Russian strikes killed one person and wounded 13 others in Ukraine's capital on Sunday after Kyiv launched a deadly wave of drones that struck e-commerce warehouses in Russia.
Issued on: 19/07/2026 - FRANCE24
Smoke hangs in the air following Russian missile strikes on Kyiv on July 19, 2026 © Serhii Okunev / AFP
The latest bombardment highlights a dual challenge for Ukraine in its fifth year of war, facing almost daily Russian attacks alongside rare domestic political instability triggered by a sudden wartime shakeup of its military leadership.
AFP journalists in Kyiv heard explosions moments after the Ukrainian air force warned residents via Telegram of incoming ballistic missiles.
One of the explosions was so powerful it set off alarms of cars parked in the city centre, an AFP journalist said.
Ukraine's state emergency services said on Telegram that one person was killed and 13 others wounded in the attack that police said had targeted six districts.
According to Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko and local authorities, an apartment building in the Solomianskyi district was hit and a fire broke out at a supermarket, while a house was ablaze in the Sviatoshynsky district.
Strikes were also reported at a shopping and entertainment centre in the Dniprovsky district, an apartment building in the Shevchenkivsky district and a non-residential building.
In Dnipropetrovsk, the central region that borders the frontline, Russian drone strikes killed one person, regional official Oleksandr Ganzha said on Telegram.
On the Russian side, a Ukrainian strike killed one person in the Kursk region, which is near the frontline, regional governor Alexander Khinshtein said on Telegram.
Russia has been firing drones and missiles at Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities almost daily since it launched its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Attacks inside Russia
On Saturday, Ukraine sent attack drones to destroy e-commerce warehouses in the Moscow and Tambov regions, killing eight people and causing major fires.
In Ukraine, Russian strikes killed five people and wounded almost 20 others in regions stretching the country's southeast Saturday.
"In response to Russian strikes on our civilian infrastructure and on our cities and communities, two major logistics facilities were hit -- in the Moscow and Tambov regions," Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had said on X.
He alleged the centres were used "to supply sanctioned components for drone production and navigation equipment".
© Sergei SUPINSKY / AFP
Kyiv has in recent months intensified its strikes on Russian territory, disrupting the lives of ordinary Russians -- strikes it calls retribution for more than four years of bombardments against its territory.
The campaign, which Kyiv calls "long-range sanctions", has mostly targeted Russia's oil infrastructure triggering a full-blown fuel crisis in one of the world's biggest oil-producing countries.
More than 370 drones were launched toward the Moscow region overnight, said the mayor of the Russian capital, Sergei Sobyanin.
Between July 11 and 18, almost 1,892 Ukrainian drones heading towards Moscow were intercepted, he added.
Rare wartime protests
But even as the war raged, in big cities across Ukraine, thousands gathered for a third day in a row to protest on Saturday the removal of popular defence minister Mykhailo Fedorov.
The tech-savvy minister was ousted by Zelensky in a surprise government reshuffle just as Ukraine appeared to be gaining momentum on the battlefield, triggering a rare public backlash.
The demonstrations came as the president held two days of meetings with top military commanders, fuelling media speculation he could be looking for a replacement for army chief Oleksandr Syrsky.
During his barely six months in office, Fedorov had repeatedly argued with Syrsky, 60, in his efforts to digitise and modernise an army strained by four and a half years of fighting.
