by Francesco Paolo Sgarlata |

What if Trump, unintentionally, turned out to be one of the key drivers of greater European integration?

His foreign policy is forcing even the most reluctant European countries to realise their own irrelevance and the urgent need to unite their efforts—at least in terms of defence and common foreign policy—in order to maintain any global influence.

The same applies to the much-feared tariffs. Trump’s strategy of negotiating separately with each European country is, on the one hand, a divisive factor, as it encourages individual governments to compete for better conditions than their neighbours. On the other hand, it begs the question: what more needs to happen for European leaders to grasp the crucial importance of a unified economic policy? A collective bargaining power would be far more effective, just as it should be in securing energy supplies. If not now, then when?

What further impetus—greater than the current global geopolitical situation—do our leaders need to complete the process of European integration?

The recent and dramatic confrontation at the White House between Zelensky and Trump has once again demonstrated that we have entered a completely new political era. A significant page has been turned.

Trump’s harsh, cynical, blunt, at times even crude approach does not necessarily mean he is the villain that various media outlets—often ideologically biased—portray him to be. Many have suggested that the White House meeting was essentially a trap set by Trump and Vance to undermine the Ukrainian leader. But why would they do that, given that Zelensky had come to sign a rare earth mining concession agreement benefiting the US and to follow up on the peace process initiated by Trump himself?

Those who watched not just the heated exchange but the entire 50-minute meeting—readily available on YouTube—could not fail to notice that for the first 40 minutes, the discussion proceeded relatively smoothly. This was despite Zelensky opening with strong words, calling Putin a murderer and a terrorist with whom no compromises could be made.

While Zelensky may have very valid reasons for holding such an opinion, it is clear that such declarations were not the ideal prelude to what was supposed to be a preparatory peace meeting. Furthermore, declaring outright that one is unwilling to compromise is unrealistic—after all, a peace agreement is by definition a compromise, where both sides make concessions in order to gain something in return. Stating the opposite at the beginning of a meeting explicitly aimed at achieving peace, and in front of the world’s media, was at the very least inappropriate.

Yet despite this, the meeting continued relatively well until around ten minutes before its conclusion, when Vance intervened, emphasising the importance of a diplomatic solution to the war—something he claimed Trump was actively pursuing.

At that moment, the situation seemed to spiral out of control. Zelensky directly challenged Vance, asking what diplomacy he was referring to, given that since 2014, no one had intervened in Ukraine’s favour, despite Putin invading a significant portion of the country and violating every agreement made with him. In essence, he was arguing that diplomacy with Putin made no sense—thus directly contradicting his American counterparts.

Vance’s sharp retort escalated tensions, and Zelensky did not shy away from the ensuing exchange, which soon also involved Trump, whose fiery temperament emerged.

Zelensky then fuelled the fire by claiming that Ukraine had been left to fend for itself since the war began. Trump, not incorrectly, reminded him that the US had provided $350 billion in aid and that without American military support, the war would have ended in two weeks. He also pointed out—bluntly but realistically—that Zelensky could only act tough because he had the United States backing him.

The rest is now history.

What was once discussed behind closed doors is now being aired publicly. This is not always a good thing. The ongoing geopolitical shift is not just about policies but also about the way diplomacy is conducted—at times in an unpleasant manner. Trump’s blunt but pragmatic stance merely brings to the surface a relationship that has always existed, even if often wrapped in a facade of idealism: the relationship of dependence between patronus and clientes in ancient Rome, or between lords and vassals in the Middle Ages. It is the lord who makes the decisions and sets the rules, not the vassal.

Zelensky has already realised this and has since adopted a more pragmatic stance. Perhaps also the individual states of the Old Continent are finally starting to realise it: alone, they matter very little when facing the superpowers.

Greater European integration is the only path to ensuring that they will be no one’s vassals.