Three years ago, no one could have imagined the possibility of a devastating war breaking out in Europe, recalling the history of its countries’ conflicts, which claimed millions of lives during two world wars and destroyed the infrastructure of most of its major cities. But the Ukrainian-Russian war reminded everyone that bloody wars and some people’s efforts to show strength or restore past glories are still possible.

Over three bloody years, hundreds of thousands of Russians and Ukrainians were killed in the fighting, many more were wounded, millions of Ukrainians were displaced and entire cities were reduced to rubble or torn apart by trenches, in a shocking reminder of World War I.

American position reversal

Today, on the third anniversary of this war, positions on it have been turned upside down. The United States has changed its alignment, Europe is outside the discussions, Ukraine is looking for bitter options, and the sponsors of mediation and its location have changed from Helsinki to Riyadh. US President Trump, who promised to end the war, has begun communicating with Moscow and sent his negotiators to meet with the Russians.

In theory, the talks should resolve the conflict this year. But in practice, there is no sign yet that this will happen. Ukraine is effectively out of the negotiations amid an unprecedented escalation of political and personal attacks with Washington. Europeans are angry and disappointed by the “preliminary concessions” that Russian President Vladimir Putin made before the negotiations even began, without offering anything in return. He has even reiterated his demands, which he has raised since the first day of his “special military operation”: disarming and subjugating Ukraine, “defeating the neo-Nazis” there, and preventing it from joining NATO.

Trump sticks to his vision

With Trump clinging to his vision of resolving the conflict without the “guarantees” that Ukraine is demanding, especially in the security field for its future, the result may lead to him discovering the complexities of this conflict, which may at least prevent the expectation of quick solutions, or ultimately lead to his withdrawal from the negotiations, whether he wants to resume support for Kiev, in response to Putin’s insistence on his demands, or he chooses “neutrality” that may serve Moscow, even if indirectly.

Some believe that Kiev, despite realizing the importance of American support, cannot bear the idea of defeat after all the sacrifices it has made. If Trump sticks to his vision of imposing a solution, it may find itself forced to continue fighting. The Europeans are also convinced that Moscow will not stop its attempts to subjugate not only Ukraine, but also to rebalance the continent as a whole, and that Putin will continue to try to seize or destroy as much of Ukraine as possible before any peace agreement, and they point to the Russian troop buildup in Belarus as evidence of his readiness to threaten other European countries.

Stagnation of fronts

In reality, however, the war in Ukraine had reached a clear stagnation, since before the change in the international scene, after the return of US President Donald Trump to power. Although the United States initially sided with its European allies against Russia, their behavior together did not suggest their readiness to quickly resolve the war in Ukraine’s favor. Instead, it became clear that prolonging the war was aimed at exhausting Russia for a long time, without allowing Ukraine to become a strong player on the European stage, in light of the approaches and reservations that the Europeans have always expressed about the role that Kiev could play. This was translated into gradualism, hesitation, and “trickle-down” in providing American and Western weapons or in allowing their use. As Russia continued to seize Ukrainian territory, albeit at a slow and costly pace in terms of human and economic costs that could no longer be tolerated, in contrast to Ukraine’s steadfastness, which was also costly, the two countries achieved parity only in directing their long-range strikes, and succeeded in transforming into two countries fully mobilized for war.

Changing nature of international conflict

But regardless of the outcome of the negotiations, the war in Ukraine has already changed the nature of conflict around the world, and the new US position on it poses more radical challenges, given its outlook on international conflicts and its priorities of achieving “America First” and achieving “peace through strength.”

Trump summarizes his justifications for his position on the war in Ukraine in several points. He says that Washington has provided more than $300 billion in aid to it. But the benefits it has achieved are disproportionate to this spending, and came at the expense of American taxpayers. With his slogan of cutting spending and streamlining the federal administration, and to compensate for this aid, he seeks to obtain an agreement to exploit precious metals in exchange for weapons and other aid that Kiev has received. It seemed that the negotiations initiated by his Treasury Secretary, and continued by his special envoy, Keith Kellogg, and the pressure he is exerting, may lead to its submission and the signing of an agreement soon that would satisfy Trump first and foremost.

US aid

But his numbers do not match the report of the US Department of Defense Inspector General, which revealed that the total financial aid allocated by Congress to Ukraine since the start of the Russian-Ukrainian war three years ago has reached $183 billion, provided by several federal agencies, including the Pentagon, the State Department, and the US Agency for International Development. He explained that about three-quarters of the financial allocations, equivalent to $132 billion, were spent to meet military needs, with more than $45 billion of that allocated to the Pentagon to replace equipment sent to Kiev.

According to an investigation conducted by the Russian news agency Novosti, the value of non-military Western financial aid to Ukraine over the course of 3 years amounted to $238.5 billion, while the value of military aid amounted to $132.5 billion.

Europe out of protection

Trump says that the relationship with Europe and NATO has always been at America’s expense. While his country bears the responsibility of protecting the continent and the majority of the alliance’s military spending, Europe has been building a “welfare” state, abandoning its role in protecting itself. Today, with the change in American strategy and its focus on competing with China, he has called on the alliance countries to increase their military spending to 2, 3, and even 5 percent, because protecting Europe is no longer Washington’s priority, and it must protect itself from any Russian attack, as stated explicitly by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in Germany recently.

With Hegseth announcing cuts to the Pentagon budget, which will include the US European Command, the African Command, and the Central Command in the Middle East, Europeans fear that the continent is facing a US withdrawal similar to the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Their warnings to take Trump’s threats seriously have escalated, after it seemed that the train of US-Russian negotiations would not stop at the stations they preferred. Some have come to believe that the United States may not remain an automatic ally of Europe, and will hardly be a partner unless it turns into an adversary.