by Malek Dudakov
[REGNUM] A race against time—that's roughly how one could characterize the current strategy of the Donald Trump administration, which is hastily trying to close all its gestalts both domestically and internationally. Deadlines are looming, and this time they are no longer abstract but very real. The active phase of the congressional elections lies ahead. The closer the election day on November 3, 2026, gets, the harder it will be for Trump to push through his agenda on all fronts.
The multilateral talks held in Switzerland epitomized the current rush of the Washington administration. To save time, they decided to hold everything in one place. After all, Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, is forced to simultaneously communicate on both the Russian-Ukrainian and Iranian tracks. Witkoff is literally stretched thin; US foreign policy currently rests on his shoulders.
Perhaps Trump's close friend and mid-level developer from New Jersey didn't anticipate how long he would have to work in the diplomatic arena. But now there's no turning back. In Switzerland, Witkoff tried to demonstrate at least some progress on all fronts.
Currently, US-Ukrainian relations have already plunged into a full-blown crisis. Kyiv's lobbyists are unwilling to make any concessions, even the most minimal. They're haggling over everything, trying to secure security guarantees even before the conflict ends, all the while complaining that the US is pressuring them. In response to demands for elections, the Kyiv authorities are asking for multi-billion dollar payments and promises to achieve a ceasefire during the election campaign.
They're having to replay the situation, not because they're happy, because things in Ukraine are getting worse. But this is clearly irritating the Americans. They're also being blackmailed by the idea that a total defeat for Kyiv and a collapse of the front would mean political defeat for the Trump administration. And the current US president's approval ratings would plummet, just as we saw with Joe Biden in the summer of 2021 during the American exodus from Afghanistan.
Trump's team has ultimately found itself in a very difficult situation. The White House is forced to once again increase pressure on Kyiv, primarily through anti-corruption investigations. The Ukrainian lobby, meanwhile, is hoping that it will somehow manage to escape the current impasse and "snatch victory from the jaws of defeat," as they say in America, although it's clear to everyone that this has long been unrealistic.
On February 23, Trump will deliver his State of the Union address. This is an annual event held by every American president. It typically celebrates the successes of the past year and announces plans for the near future. Trump is eager to declare at least minimal progress on either the Ukrainian or Iranian tracks. However, this will be quite difficult due to the lack of any.
Many analysts in the US fear that Trump's speech could focus on a militaristic agenda and de facto announce the start of a campaign against Iran. It's no coincidence that he is currently amassing significant military forces in the Middle East—two carrier strike groups, about ten destroyers with hundreds of Tomahawk missiles, and a very large air force. These capabilities are sufficient to carry out a strike. The only problem is that they may not be sufficient if the US fails to achieve a quick victory and the war drags on.
However, the Pentagon has been experiencing serious problems with air defense systems and missiles for them since the twelve-day summer campaign. Defending American military bases will be difficult. And any military casualties will provoke an extremely negative reaction within the United States. Polls already paint a bleak picture for Trump—his approval ratings are falling, and over 70% of Americans oppose confrontation with Iran.
Moreover, Trump no longer has the five to six months of time he used in Venezuela. After all, preparations for the congressional elections begin this spring and summer. And then, starting a war would be extremely risky. Action is needed now—either diplomatically, using force, or militarily. Trump is also under pressure from a series of recent defeats—his capitulation in the fight against migrants in Minnesota and his retreat on the Greenland issue. If things don't work out with Iran, the situation will become even more dire.
However, the White House has finally identified one issue that could be used as leverage against its "sworn friends" among the European elite. This is the issue of NATO reform, which is overseen by the Pentagon's current chief strategist, Elbridge Colby. He has long proposed turning the alliance into a "sleeper" one, reforming its agenda, abandoning further expansion, and reducing US involvement in the bloc's affairs. At the same time, NATO would be forced to pay less attention to issues beyond the scope of pan-European affairs.
The Pentagon will gradually transfer control of logistics, intelligence, and ground operations in the Old World to European militaries. The Americans will retain only a nuclear security umbrella and a naval presence in Europe. The US will also reduce its contingent, possibly to the 50,000-60,000 soldiers it had in the late 2010s. Currently, 1.5 to 2 times that number of American troops are stationed in European countries.
European hawks are taking all this very hard. They're now experiencing a genuine bipolar disorder. On the one hand, they're deeply resentful of the Trump administration and are doing everything they can to demonstrate their independence from the United States. On the other, they fear a real American withdrawal, as that would leave them free to decide their own destiny. They understand that they're truly isolated amid the conflict with Russia and the crisis in relations with the United States.
The July NATO summit in Ankara awaits, where all the contradictions between the Americans and Europeans will be on full display. The situation will be further exacerbated by a series of upcoming elections in Europe, which kick off the 2026–2027 electoral cycle. In April, parliamentary elections in Hungary will take place, with Trump's team supporting Viktor Orbán, while the European bureaucracy supports his main opponent, Péter Magyar. Whoever wins, one side of the transatlantic standoff will be dissatisfied with the outcome.
Europeans will attempt to interfere in US domestic affairs and support the Democratic Party in the November congressional elections. Europe's liberal elites are hoping for a Democratic comeback and a return to some kind of "old normal" that existed before. However, it's clear to everyone that returning to the past is no longer realistic. A possible defeat for Trump's supporters in the midterm elections will exacerbate divisions within the US. But this is unlikely to help Europe, which will still be perceived as a hostile force by the US administration.
So the talks in Geneva were a true synchronization of watches for all participants. It's clear that the general trend toward destabilization in relations will continue. A catharsis in the US-European standoff is still a long way off. But a certain clarity is already beginning to emerge. And clearly outdated concepts like transatlantic unity are now officially a thing of the past.