The $15 Billion Solution: How Europe Can Beat Putin at His Own Game

Why weapons deals must come first, and territorial negotiations second

Europe is holding its breath.

In the space of two days, European capitals moved $1.5 billion into NATO's new weapons-buying scheme for Ukraine—a lightning-fast commitment that would normally take months to negotiate. The timing wasn't coincidental: every euro was strategically placed before Trump and Putin sat down to reshape the war's trajectory.

But this wasn't just about money. It was about who controls the narrative when the world's most optics-obsessed president met with its most calculating autocrat.

Two competing theories are circulating through European foreign ministries and pro-democracy circles worldwide. One camp believes Zelensky, now in a much stronger position than ever before, will reject any deal that hands Vladimir Putin territorial prizes. The other camp worries that Europe, despite its recent financial and military commitments, may end up pressuring Zelensky into concessions by dangling security guarantees as consolation.

The truth is both dynamics are already in motion. As details from Trump's preliminary conversations with European leaders started leaking, one figure emerged as the key voice shaping Europe's position: French President Emmanuel Macron. He made security guarantees the absolute priority while categorically rejecting territorial concessions. Notably, no other major European leader has been quite so explicit about their red lines.

This calculated ambiguity isn't accidental—it's classic pre-negotiation positioning. But beneath the diplomatic choreography lies a fundamental miscalculation that could unravel everything Europe is trying to achieve.

The miscalculation is this: Europe wants a good deal, but Trump simply wants any deal. This critical distinction is what Putin is betting everything on.

Trump doesn't need substance—he needs spectacle. A handshake photo, a signing ceremony, the narrative of "Trump the dealmaker" bringing peace where others failed. Putin understands this psychological profile better than most European leaders, and he's structured his entire negotiation strategy around feeding Trump's appetite for optics while extracting maximum territorial gains.

This is precisely why I argued yesterday that Europe must delink their relationship with the United States from the Trump-Putin axis. The current approach—trying to influence Trump's position through traditional diplomatic tactics—fundamentally misreads how Trump operates.

Consider what an ideal European strategy would have looked like: British PM Keir Starmer, Ukrainian President Zelensky, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz should have visited Washington together, conducted behind-the-scenes negotiations, and emerged with a unified message: "We're working on President Trump's peace proposal and will present his vision to the EU and Ukrainian parliaments." Then immediately announce a multi-year US-UK-Germany-Ukraine weapons deal.

Clean. Simple. Effective. Trump gets credit for the "peace process," Europe retains control over the actual terms, and Putin gets pushed into the background rather than positioned as Trump's co-architect of Ukraine's future.

Even now, this strategy remains achievable. Macron would naturally sideline himself from such a deal—France fundamentally opposes large-scale American arms purchases—but this actually works in everyone's favor. His absence would remove a complicating voice while allowing France to maintain its strategic autonomy principles.

The window for this kind of bold maneuvering is closing rapidly, however, and what we're hearing from European capitals suggests they're still thinking in terms of traditional alliance management rather than Trump-specific psychology.

As it stands, I'm not encouraged by the signals coming from European capitals. But the meeting hasn't begun, and there's still room for strategic maneuvering.

The decision to prevent Zelensky from traveling to Washington alone was absolutely crucial. We all know what would have happened: Trump would have immediately pushed Zelensky toward whatever deal Putin had already outlined for him. The worst-case scenario—a repeat of when President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance tried to force Zelensky into a bad deal—has been successfully avoided.

But avoiding disaster isn't the same as achieving success. The possibility of a fundamentally flawed agreement still looms, and Europe's challenge now is to navigate today's discussions without committing to anything concrete. In essence, they need to deliver another "nothing burger"—no dramatic announcements, no binding commitments, just continued dialogue.

This outcome is actually within reach, thanks to the guardrails Germany and other European allies established through their rapid PURL commitments. That first $1.5 billion placed into NATO's new weapons-buying scheme creates a tether that won't be easily broken. These financial commitments may seem fragile on paper, but if today's meetings conclude with that tether tightening rather than loosening, it represents a significant strategic victory.

The fundamental question remains: Can Trump resist the temptation of Putin's "give me Donbas, you take the Nobel Prize" offer?

The answer is no—he won't be able to resist trying. But he can't actually deliver on such a deal without European buy-in, and Europe has never agreed to anything without weeks of circular deliberations. What happened last week with the PURL commitments was genuinely shocking in its speed and decisiveness. For now, I'm treating that as an anomaly rather than a new pattern. When facing existential threats, Europe has apparently developed the capacity for rapid response. In normal circumstances, they'll revert to their traditional pace.

This structural reality means that even if Trump pushes hard for a "give up Donbas" deal, it simply won't cut through European decision-making processes quickly enough to matter.

Europe's only remaining challenge today is ensuring Trump doesn't revert to his previous bully mode of "get me any deal, any deal now." This is where clear strategic thinking becomes essential.

Can European leaders pull Trump fully toward their position and away from Putin's framework? It's possible, but it won't happen this week. The timeline simply doesn't allow for it.