By Bertrand Benoit and David Luhnow
BERLIN -- This week will bring a split screen that will reinforce growing doubts in Europe about the American commitment to the alliance that has served as the bedrock of Western unity since the end of World War II.
On one side, White House special envoy Steve Witkoff will be in Moscow for the latest round of peace talks with the Kremlin over the Ukraine war. Witkoff, who has yet to visit Ukraine, is making his sixth trip to Moscow this year.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio will be skipping a biannual gathering of NATO foreign ministers and sending a deputy in his place. The last time the U.S.'s. top diplomat didn't show up at the event was 1999, when Washington's focus was on Middle East peace, a former NATO spokeswoman said.
His absence will be felt acutely, coming as it does in the middle of peace talks over Ukraine that have prompted many European leaders to question whether Washington's priorities are still aligned with those of Europe.
A leaked peace plan and transcripts of a call between Witkoff and a top Kremlin foreign-policy aide have left many with the impression that the Trump administration is more interested in improving ties and economic cooperation with Russia than defending the trans-Atlantic alliance.
Two aspects of the 28-point peace plan, in particular, landed like bombshells in Europe's defense and foreign-policy establishment. First, the plan treated Russia as a clear winner and Ukraine as the loser, forcing Kyiv to give up strategic land it hasn't yet lost, shrink its military and leave it without an ironclad guarantee of protection from either the U.S. or European allies should Russia rearm and come back for more.
Second, it described the U.S. as a mediator between Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, suggesting America no longer saw itself as a member of the alliance it has long dominated and which has guaranteed much of Europe's security since World War II.
"It is a Versailles treaty, except one that punishes the victim and rewards the aggressor," said Carlo Masala, professor of international politics at the Bundeswehr University Munich, referring to the treaty that ended World War I. "And I think it reflects the positions of a certain faction in the U.S. government."
The terms of a possible peace are still being hammered out, and the Europeans have had some success pushing back. Witkoff will be presenting amended terms of the peace plan to Russian President Vladimir Putin this week. Some European diplomats also recognize that the Trump administration's biggest goal is simply to end the fighting.
But skepticism in Europe has deepened as more information has emerged about how the U.S. plan was drafted -- including a leaked call in which Witkoff appeared to be coaching Yuri Ushakov, a Kremlin foreign-policy adviser, on what Putin should say to Trump, according to a transcript published by Bloomberg News.
"That's the dream scenario for Russia. Since the Soviet Union, its goal has been to get a wedge between the U.S. and Europe," said retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges. "I think the reason Trump disregards Europe is because he sees Europe as being inconsequential."
The White House hasn't disputed the veracity of the report of the leaked call, and has defended Witkoff. Spokesperson Anna Kelly told the Journal last week that the Trump administration "has gathered input from both the Ukrainians and Russians to formulate a peace deal that can stop the killing and bring this war to a close."
Polish Premier Donald Tusk called the draft peace plan "unacceptable." Former Finnish Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto said it was a pity that NATO partners needed to learn about details of peace plans involving Ukraine from media reports. "This shows that as a political entity NATO has not been working properly," he said.
French President Emmanuel Macron met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Monday and later spoke to President Trump, underscoring the importance of security guarantees for Ukraine, Macron's office said.
If it weren't for the Europeans, a French official said earlier in the day, Putin and Trump would have reached an agreement a long time ago. Europe, the official said, finds itself alone because the Americans are disengaging with the region, meaning it must rely more on itself.
The Americans and Europeans are coming at the peace process from two different angles, said Emily Ferris, a Russia expert at the Royal United Services Institute, a London think tank specialized in defense and military affairs.
"Europe sees Russia rearming and is worried about the next war," she said. "The Americans are thinking much more short-term -- let's get this process over the line -- cease-fire deal, get Ukraine back on its feet and cobble together some sort of cold peace for another year or two."
The difference, she added, can be explained by Europeans' proximity to the battlefield and the feeling they might be next, whereas the Americans are more worried about China as a long-term threat and Trump badly wants to conclude another peace deal. Europe is also being subjected to a campaign of hostile tactics from Russia, including cyberattacks, drone incursions and incidents involving the cutting of undersea internet cables.
Most European political and military leaders agree that Putin's ambition is to rebuild Russia's imperial reach, especially in Eastern Europe and Baltic states that used to form part of the Soviet Union. Standing in his way is NATO and its mutual defense clause, which states that an attack on one is an attack on all members, including a nuclear-armed U.S.
Putin knows he can't defeat NATO in a head-on fight, especially given how badly the war in Ukraine has gone for Russian forces. His only hope is to defeat it politically by undermining its cohesiveness, which he tries to do all the time, said Ed Arnold, a former British army infantry officer who specializes in European security analysis for the RUSI think tank.
The U.S.'s latest peace plan would go a long way toward dividing NATO, by proposing what would amount to an amnesty for Russia for the invasion, allowing it to re-enter the G-8 club of rich countries and pursue joint economic development plans with the U.S. in areas like the Arctic.
"That would create huge divisions within the trans-Atlantic partnership, " Arnold said. "Politically, Russia is on the cusp of winning."
Masala, the German academic, said such moves to reintegrate Russia into the global economy would make it harder for European politicians to persuade voters to back higher defense spending.
Masala has gained recent notoriety for laying out how Russia might go about testing NATO to ultimately cause it to unravel. His booklet, "If Russia Wins," has been making the rounds in European capitals and helps explain Europe's anxiety about NATO and the U.S. administration.
The book describes a scenario in which Russia, having forced Ukraine's capitulation, goes on to rearm and, in early 2028, sends in armed commandos to seize the town of Narva and the island of Hiiumaa in Estonia, arguing its majority Russian-speaking population needs protection.
In the book, NATO allies don't know how to act. Ultimately, the U.S. president decides he doesn't want to risk a global war over a small town no one has heard of. His position is backed by a far-right government in France that has been elected by then, and Russia-friendly governments in Hungary and Slovakia.
In Masala's scenario, NATO's failure to act over such a small incursion has big consequences. NATO is built on decades of trust, so it would only take one time when it fails to act for everyone to question whether the alliance really works, and what it would take for the U.S., for instance, to rally to the side of a small Baltic country like Estonia.
A fractured NATO would then give Russia the ability to try to retake the Baltics, which used to belong to the Soviet Union, with more manageable military risks. Would Poland or Germany, both of which lack nuclear weapons, stand in the way?
RUSI's Arnold says the Masala scenario is plausible. Another possible move: Russian forces could try to narrow the so-called Suwalki Gap, a small stretch of land that links NATO members Lithuania and Poland that's sandwiched between Russian and Belarusian territory.
"If Russian forces took a few kilometers of that land, would a president like Trump risk all-out war?" If he didn't, said Arnold, the entire premise behind NATO would be at risk of collapse.
Write to Bertrand Benoit at bertrand.benoit@wsj.com and David Luhnow at david.luhnow@wsj.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
December 01, 2025 20:00 ET (01:00 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Comments