EDITOR'S CORNER: Ringing the Danger Bell for Ukraine

Last week, I wrote about how U.S. President Donald Trump made a deal with Vladimir Putin, the dictator of Russia, to import diesel. Since this deal was announced, it has caused furore among U.S. allies, and it seems that in the days since, things have only gotten worse for Ukraine. Starlink was shut off and slowed down for Ukraine, Trump demanded that Zelenskyy step down, and a so-called energy ceasefire was announced by Trump. This ceasefire came as a surprise to both Putin and Zelenskyy, and, of course, Russia doubled down on its attacks on Kyiv.

What can we do in a situation where Trump does not seem to care about the consequences, but simply wants this war to end because it “pushes prices up,” despite the fact that the war in Iran is actually a major factor behind soaring diesel and gas prices?

Credit for image: Wikimedia Commons

WHAT HAPPENED IN UKRAINE THIS PAST WEEK?

Over the past week, the situation in Ukraine has deteriorated sharply, particularly as tensions between Kyiv and Washington have grown. Russia has carried out heavy attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, hitting power plants and other facilities and leaving hundreds of thousands without electricity. President Zelenskyy has also reported attacks on major cities, including Kyiv and Kharkiv, while Ukrainian officials say Russia has continued striking despite President Trump’s call for an energy ceasefire.

At the same time, Ukraine’s relationship with the United States has come under increasing strain. Following Trump’s announcement of the energy ceasefire, Ukraine faced difficult decisions about its own attacks on Russian infrastructure as Moscow continued its assaults. Trump has criticized Zelenskyy and called for him to step down, while his administration has also put further sanctions on Russia on hold. Ukraine has warned that easing economic pressure on Moscow could encourage Putin to continue the war rather than bring it to an end.

Perhaps most seriously, restrictions on Starlink have raised concerns about Ukraine’s ability to coordinate its forces and operate drones, which are essential to both attacking Russian positions and defending against Russian assaults. Although access was reportedly restored in part, the episode highlighted Ukraine’s dependence on technology controlled by U.S. companies. Meanwhile, concerns about reduced American military and intelligence support have grown just as Russia intensifies its campaign against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure ahead of winter.

STARLINK AND UKRAINE’S DEPENDENCE ON U.S. TECHNOLOGY

Starlink has become a vital part of Ukraine’s war effort, providing satellite internet that allows Ukrainian forces to communicate, coordinate operations, and control drones on the battlefield. Recent restrictions on Starlink access have raised serious concerns about Ukraine’s ability to defend itself, highlighting how dependent its military has become on technology controlled by private companies. When access to such a critical system can be disrupted, the consequences can extend far beyond communications, potentially affecting Ukraine’s ability to respond to Russian attacks.

The incident has also raised questions about the reliability of American support, particularly amid growing tensions between Kyiv and the Trump administration. Any disruption to Starlink risks undermining Ukraine’s military operations and gives renewed urgency to the search for alternative communications systems. For Ukraine, the challenge is not simply restoring access, but reducing its dependence on a single system that plays such a critical role in its defence.

The interesting thing about this week’s Starlink kerfuffle is how quickly the blame shifted. Initially, Elon Musk was blamed for the restrictions affecting Ukraine’s access to Starlink. Musk then pointed toward the White House, arguing that Starlink’s military counterpart, Starshield, operates under U.S. government control. Soon after, reports and speculation emerged suggesting that Musk himself may have initiated the restrictions, with Trump merely signing off on the decision. Now, Musk appears increasingly concerned about the potential backlash from European countries, many of which rely on American technology and are reassessing their dependence on it.

Whatever the precise chain of events, the episode has exposed a fundamental vulnerability in Ukraine’s war effort: its dependence on critical technology controlled by a small number of powerful actors. It has also raised broader questions about accountability. If access to a system as essential as Starlink can be restricted amid political disagreements, how can Ukraine and its European allies be confident that the technology they depend on today will remain available tomorrow?

THE PURL PROGRAMME UNDER THREAT

The PURL (Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List) programme, which allows European allies and other partners to fund the purchase of American weapons for Ukraine, is also facing uncertainty. Reports have emerged that the Trump administration could suspend the programme and intelligence sharing unless Kyiv halts its attacks on Russian oil refineries. Although weapons deliveries through PURL have continued, the longer-term outlook remains unclear. 

The possibility that Washington could use military assistance as leverage over Ukraine raises serious concerns, particularly as Ukrainian forces face shortages of critical air-defence missiles. If future deliveries are delayed or suspended, Europe may struggle to replace American weapons quickly enough, leaving Ukraine increasingly vulnerable to Russian attacks.

WHAT'S THE POINT?

The point is not to spend every week writing about how badly the U.S. is behaving or how precarious Ukraine’s situation has become. However, we must not lose sight of what is at stake. If Ukraine loses its war against Russia, it would represent a failure for Europe to defend itself against an aggressive neighbour. Meanwhile, as the United States adopts an increasingly confrontational and unpredictable approach under Donald Trump, NATO’s unity and credibility are also at risk. What was once the cornerstone of European security can no longer be taken for granted, raising serious questions about the future of the alliance and Europe’s ability to defend itself.

Last week, I argued that we must continue supporting Ukraine while maintaining our relationship with the United States and, at the same time, building Europe’s own strength and independence. However, I am increasingly coming to believe that we will never win with Trump. He is not someone who can easily be reasoned with or appeased. Whatever concessions we make, unless they align precisely with what he wants, may never be enough. Trump will continue to threaten Ukraine, Greenland and the EU while maintaining a relationship with Putin whenever it serves his interests and those of his loyal administration.

What makes this situation even more concerning is that the current administration appears increasingly willing to subordinate long-term geopolitical interests to political loyalty and short-term deals. The consequences of aligning with an adversary at the expense of longstanding allies seem to receive little consideration. Even Marco Rubio, once regarded as a prominent hawk on Russia, appears to have moderated his position within the administration. Whether this reflects a genuine change of convictions or the political realities of serving under Trump, the result is the same: Europe can no longer assume that Washington will consistently prioritise European security. For Rubio and others in the administration, challenging Trump may carry enormous political costs, leaving little room for meaningful dissent.

CONCLUSION 

Ultimately, Europe cannot afford to give up on Ukraine, nor can it continue to rely on a United States that increasingly treats its allies as bargaining chips. We must keep supporting Ukraine, try to keep the door open to Washington, and build the strength to stand on our own two feet quickly. 

We cannot control Trump, reason with him on every issue, or guarantee his loyalty. But we can control how prepared we are when the next threat comes. Europe’s security cannot depend on the goodwill of one man. It must rest on our own strength, unity, and determination to defend what we stand for.

But Europeans must also understand that security comes at a cost. We must either invest the money today to protect our safety tomorrow, or risk paying a far greater price later in the blood of those we love. Ukrainians are living that reality every single day. Europe still has the opportunity to prepare. We must not waste it.