European leaders have dealt with President Trump’s return to office by trying to keep him cooperating on Ukraine while pushing to ramp up their own defense spending so they are less reliant on an increasingly fickle America.

But Friday’s meeting in the Oval Office, in which Mr. Trump berated President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, underscored for European leaders that while they still need to try to keep the United States at the table, they also might need to come up with more concrete plans of their own — and fast.

To know more about the issue, we reached out to Dr. Osman Faruk Logoglu, a veteran Turkish politician.

Following is the full text of his interview:

Zelensky’s visit to White House was very controversial. Regardless of this fact, it seems that Europe has lost its strategic importance for the US. What do you think of this?

“Trump deliberately used the White House visit publicly to accuse Zelensky of starting the war with Russia and of not wanting peace, presumably to justify and explain his siding with Russia!  Trump/VP Vance’s behavior was unbecoming, humiliating and disparaging.   

As for the broader developments in the Euro-Atlantic relations, including this recent incident’s implications for Europe, we must first recall that Trump has long expressed discomfort with its NATO allies for not spending enough for their defense.  He has made threats against European allies that the US would no longer pay for Europe’s defense and called on them to increase their defense expenditures. Objectively speaking, the strategic importance of Europe for the US has not changed or diminished, whether or not Trump recognizes it.  Russian expansionism and threat to Europe remain unchanged. What has changed is Trump’s conception of the priority of the assumed Chinese threat to American security and well-being and his consequent desire to pull Putin to his side as a partner in Trump’s handling of the so-called Chinese threat.  Trump believes that the price of Putin’s friendship is letting him get what he wants in Ukraine and abandoning European NATO allies in their efforts to continue supporting Ukraine!  

Trump for better or worse has signaled a wake-up call to Europe.  European nations must now review their positions vis-a-vis NATO, USA, and Russia and develop new defense strategies to cover at least the four years of Trump’s second term. 

Recent US approach towards Europe indicates that Washington is siding with Russia in face of the EU, because in the new world order based on Great Power Competitions the Russia and the China cooperations is more important for the US and the US is trying to weaken the two countries cooperation by increasing its engagement with Moscow. What is your assessment?

The underlying Trump assumption that winning Russia’s goodwill will help the USA in its handling of China is wrong and has no basis in reality.  Russia will not sacrifice its ties with China for the sake of Trump’s unreliable catering toward Russian interests, and partner with the USA in unfriendly acts toward China.  Putin is too smart and experienced to do that.  What he will do is to play along with Trump, without really giving up anything of significance, or value in its ties with China.  On the other hand, in its competition with China, Europe could play a greater role of importance for the USA.  At the end of the day, Trump is gambling and is likely to end up as a loser to China! 

Will Russia accept the European peace-keepers presence in Ukraine in case of reaching a peace agreement?

Russia is unlikely to accept European peacekeepers in Ukraine as part of a peace agreement.  Putin would regard it as a camouflaged NATO presence and we know how strongly he opposes any NATO connection, direct or indirect, for Ukraine.  But we also know that Zelensky is adamant and right in insisting on concrete security guarantees for his country in case of a peace agreement.  There are two potential ways of circumventing this issue.  One is to involve Europe in the peace negotiations with Russia.    The other is to engage the United Nations.  I have to admit that either option has little chance of success.  

It seems that now even NATO has to maintain its missions based on US interests like opening its office in Japan. Do you think that NATO has to maintain its missions in line with US Indo-Pacific strategy?

NATO is a defense organization.  And security is a global issue.  The security of NATO members can be affected by developments beyond the European theater. An example is NATO involvement in Afghanistan when NATO presence there was headed by a former Turkish Foreign Minister, Hikmet Çetin.  Thus, NATO establishing an office in Japan should not necessarily be viewed as an ffice to defend American interests. Japan and NATO members other than the USA should see to it that the office is not designed just to pursue American interests.

Generally, which parts of Europe are still important for the US?

I think this question can be answered in two different ways.  One is that all of Europe is still important for the USA! The other is that Greenland, Ukraine, and other areas of Europe with rare earth elements are important for the USA.  The former is more enduring while the latter is Trump’s whim and therefore passing!”