#7 China Scholar Insights: China-U.S.-Europe Relations under Trump 2.0

For China, fostering pragmatic engagement with the EU and advancing trilateral cooperation among China, the U.S., and Europe is pivotal.

Chenghao Sun

Lingzhi Hu

Liangyu Gao

, and 4 others

Mar 26, 2025

Welcome to the 7th edition of China Scholar Insights!

China Scholar Insights is a feature which aimed at providing you with the latest analysis on issues that Chinese scholars and strategic communities are focusing on. We will carefully select commentary articles and highlight key points. Questions or criticisms can be directed to sunchenghao@tsinghua.edu.cn.

I am SUN Chenghao, a fellow with the Center for International Security and Strategy (CISS) at Tsinghua University. ChinAffairs+ is a newsletter that shares Chinese academic articles focused on topics such as China’s foreign policy, China-U.S. relations, China-European relations, and more. This newsletter was co-founded by me and my research assistant, ZHANG Xueyu.

Chinese Scholars’ Insights on China-U.S.-Europe Relations under Trump 2.0

Background

Trump’s return to the White House ushers in a “2.0 era” with an “America First” foreign policy reshaping China-U.S.-Europe relations. Key issues include the Ukraine stalemate, Europe’s push for security autonomy, and fractured transatlantic trust. Trump pressures Europe on defense, bypasses allies to engage Russia, and intensifies rivalry with China. Meanwhile, China navigates its stance on Russia, European security, and multilateral peace efforts, reshaping global geopolitics and the 21st-century world order.

Summary

Trump’s demands for higher European defense spending and weapon purchases, coupled with unilateral moves on Ukraine, expose deepening U.S.-Europe divergences. Despite EU efforts toward defense integration, economic constraints, political divisions, and entrenched U.S. security dependence hinder genuine autonomy. Compromises to appease Washington risk reinforcing a “resources to America, debts to Europe” dynamic. Meanwhile, Trump’s unilateralism exacerbates multipolar chaos, weakening global governance and leaving the Global South disillusioned by withdrawn U.S. aid. Amid this context, China must reinforce China-Russian collaboration, support European strategic autonomy to counter unipolar dominance, and engage cautiously in multilateral peacekeeping to stabilize Ukraine.

Insights

SUN Chenghao: If Trump wants peace in Ukraine, he must reach a consensus with Europe

Munich Observation：The lasting shift of Europe’s mindset toward the U.S. places transatlantic relations at a crossroads

U.S. Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference to “educate” Europe caught many Europeans off guard. Some scholars believe that the speech was under the dual direction of the MAGA faction and Europe’s right-wing forces, and more radical ones suspect that it was intervening in Germany’s elections. Although Europe will still remain allies with the U.S., if Washington’s new policies outlast Trump, the economic and security rifts between the U.S. and Europe will be widened, and the shared values will also be eroded.

An Uneasy Resolution: The U.S. peace plan for the Russia-Ukraine conflict may gain European acceptance while straining transatlantic relations

The Russia-Ukraine conflict is central to the 2025 Munich Security Conference and the U.S.-European relationship. Each player has distinct strategic goals: The U.S. seeks negotiations and reduced aid to Kyiv, while Russia focuses on its geopolitical interests, resisting NATO, and gaining sanctions relief. Kyiv prioritizes reclaiming territory and security, potentially offering more concessions as U.S. strategy shifts. Europe focuses on its security. Trump’s “America First” approach may drive Europe toward security unity, but with limited defense autonomy, Europe might accept his “peace plan” and need a new security and economic framework to reshape the transatlantic alliance.

Dawn of Peace: The consensus between Washington and Moscow and the participation of Europe will contribute to the final peace of the conflict

The conflict has harmed multiple stakeholders, but its resolution depends on factors such as Kyiv’s level of concessions, Russia’s potential demands, Europe’s stance on Ukraine, and shifts in U.S. policy. While the world favors a peaceful resolution, several factors still create uncertainty about the duration, outcome, and conditions of negotiations.

First, Russia’s demands are too harsh for Kyiv to accept, even under U.S. pressure. Second, while Washington pushes Europe to accept its peace plan, Europe may not comply. Third, trump’s preference for direct leader-to-leader diplomacy and “transactional” negotiations means the U.S. position could shift throughout the process. Additionally, economic changes, evolving U.S. policies toward Europe, and the standoff between Russia and Europe may weaken European governments’ willingness to support Ukraine, despite the empathy of their citizens.

Resolving the Ukraine crisis requires a clear negotiation framework involving Europe and Ukraine. The U.S. must mediate, Russia should soften its demands, Ukraine needs a pragmatic approach with security and economic guarantees, and Europe must balance support for Ukraine with transatlantic unity.

ZHAO Huaipu: Decoding the “EU Variable” in the U.S.-China-Europe Trilateral Dynamics

The U.S., China, and Europe (led by the EU) are the world’s three strategic pillars, with their trilateral dynamics shaping the 21st-century global order. Their relationship is marked by intertwined interests and interdependencies, balancing competition and cooperation, with closer U.S.-EU alignment, evolving dynamics, and a flexible EU-China partnership.

The EU’s Triple Role in the U.S.-China-Europe Strategic Triangle

The EU plays a multifaceted role as a power balancer, informal ally, and contradictory partner in the evolving dynamics among the U.S., China, and Europe. Positioned as a critical third party, the EU seeks to maximize its interests by avoiding alignment with either the U.S. or China, promoting "strategic autonomy" to navigate their rivalry. While aligned with the U.S. in values and security, the EU sees China as both a partner and competitor, aiming to balance ties while protecting its own interests.

Trump’s Return and Challenges to European Strategic Autonomy

A Trump-led U.S. administration risks undermining EU strategic autonomy. With a “America First” approach, Trump could deepen transatlantic imbalances, pressuring Europe to align with U.S. strategies against China. Already reliant on U.S. security amid the Ukraine crisis, Europe may face demands for quid-pro-quo deals, such as supporting U.S. tech competition policies in exchange for security guarantees. This dynamic threatens to erode the EU’s middle-ground strategy, pushing it toward greater dependency on Washington and complicating its relations with Beijing.

Navigating Dilemmas: The EU’s Path Forward

The EU’s dilemma lies in balancing its asymmetric alliance with the U.S. against the pragmatic benefits of engaging China. While aligning with Washington on shared values and security, Europe risks marginalization if it over-compromises. Conversely, maintaining stable ties with China offers economic opportunities and buffers against U.S. unilateralism. To mitigate risks, the EU must reinforce strategic autonomy by diversifying partnerships and advocating for multilateral frameworks. For China, fostering trilateral dialogue mechanisms could stabilize the triangular relationship, ensuring a more balanced and predictable global order amid rising great-power tensions.

CHEN Yang: After the U.S. withdrawal, Europe’s path to defense autonomy remains challenging

The Trump administration recently negotiated a ceasefire deal with Russia, excluding Europe and Ukraine, prompting European countries to consider implementing a ceasefire without U.S. support. French President Macron acknowledged Europe’s concerns about global instability and warned that the EU must strengthen its military autonomy in this “new era”.

The Reinforcement of Defense Expenditure

The goal of spending more on defense is difficult to achieve:

Since the Ukraine Crisis, European NATO members have rapidly increased defense budgets. However, Trump demands 5% of GDP for defense, surpassing current NATO spending. For Europe, this is challenging after decades of relying on U.S. security. Under pressure and geopolitical strains, many European countries are inclined to raise defense spending, but budget constraints make it cannot be done overnight.

How to spend the increased military budget remains a question:

Only by purchasing more American weapons can the Trump administration be satisfied, and help boost the military capacity of Europe in the short term. However, in the long term, this approach would undermine Europe’s efforts to develop an independent defense. It would also weaken its domestic defense industry.

The Readjustment of NATO’s Mission Regarding the Ukraine Crisis

With Trump promising to end the war, NATO’s mission is going to shift from a combat model of “aiding Ukraine, resisting Russia” to a confrontation model of “protecting Ukraine, deterring Russia”. In the future ceasefire result, the NATO may face the risk of retreating and even being sidelined. What’s more, France, Germany and other European countries have shown that they are reluctant to be drawn directly into the conflict. Therefore, how Ukraine’s future security will be supported by American and European hard power remains uncertain.

The Redistribution of Transatlantic Security Responsibilities

Building European Defense Capabilities takes time while the U.S. can leave at any time

For Europe, this offers an opportunity to strengthen its own security and defense. The EU supports increased defense spending and common defense capabilities, encouraging member states to boost conventional forces. However, these plans are unlikely to be completed within the next four years, while the Trump administration could withdraw the U.S. from Europe at any time during that period.

Reducing Europe’s military dependence on the U.S. remains challenging

A challenging issue for Europe is its deep reliance on U.S. security guarantees. Germany’s Chancellor Scholz emphasized that security and responsibility must remain shared between Europe and the U.S. through NATO. Given this mindset, Europe’s efforts to develop its own defense capabilities and independently safeguard its security interests remain a long and difficult journey.

Wang Yiwei: The Munich Security Conference reflects a century of unprecedented Global Transformation

U.S. Strategy towards Europe: Stimulate - Divide - Pressure

U.S. Vice President Vance sharply criticized Europe for backsliding on core values, stating that its greatest threat is not Russia or China, but its own suppression of free speech and failures in immigration management. He specifically called out the UK, Germany, Romania, and Sweden, highlighting growing U.S.-Europe divisions. Meanwhile, a CSIS report on the “Transatlantic Alliance in the Trump Era” indicates a shift in U.S. strategy, with Trump no longer viewing Europe as the core of global strategy. Instead, he is pushing Europe to take on more security responsibilities while leveraging military commitments to extract economic and regulatory concessions.

Europe’s Frustration: Ukraine on the Menu, Europe off the Table

At last year’s Munich Security Conference, U.S. Secretary of State Blinken’s remark, “If it’s not on the table, it’s on the menu,” became reality—Ukraine is on the menu, but Europe is sidelined. U.S. Vice President Vance’s comments humiliated Europe and use security leverage to pressure Europe into accepting higher demands in defense, trade, and technology. However, Europe’s political divisions, economic pressures, and diverse interests make forming a unified strategy a significant challenge.

The Helplessness of the Global South

At the meeting, Global South countries expressed “helplessness” as the Trump administration suspended financial aid for 90 days and shut down USAID. Ghana’s President Mahama voiced concerns over the loss of global public goods. After all, most African countries still rely heavily on aid for development. Nepal’s representative also lamented the US aid agency Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) had stopped providing funds.

A World in Disarray: The New Unformed while the Old Unraveled

This year’s Munich Security Conference focused on "multipolarization," highlighting concerns over global disorder. With the rise of the Global South, AI advancements, and Trump’s resurgence, Europe faces declining influence over global order. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warned of a U.S.-China bipolar dynamic, fueling Europe’s anxiety about marginalization. In response, French President Macron hosted an AI summit, promoting a “third way” in AI development to strengthen Europe’s position.

Pin Hsiao：Ukraine Peace Prospects and China’s New Role

Uncertain Prospects for Peace: Disagreements within the United Nations

On the war’s third anniversary, the UN passed two draft resolutions on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, but the voting process revealed significant difficulties. Ukraine’s proposal gained European support, while the U.S. draft sparked disagreements: Russia’s amendments failed, but EU and UK proposals were adopted. In the final vote, both the U.S. and China abstained, while Russia opposed, citing neglect of its interests, underscoring persistent differences.

High Difficulty in Reaching an Agreement：Russia is Unwilling to Compromise Easily

Trump’s “deal-making” approach aligns with some of Putin’s strategic interests, but Putin is cautious about the risks and costs of negotiating with Trump. On Ukraine, Putin’s goal is to improve Russia-U.S. relations, including restoring diplomacy and pushing for sanctions relief. However, deep contradictions and low trust between the two countries make reaching a compromise on Ukraine highly challenging.

China’s New Role in Ukraine Crisis: Three Issues China Needs to Address

Trump’s approach to promoting peace in Ukraine has caused significant changes in the situation in Ukraine, and China needs to properly address three key issues in the rapidly changing situation:

Firstly, China should preserve the strategic value of China-Russia relations, ensuring external intervention does not disrupt their cooperation. Both countries should continue collaboration in regional security, economic interests, cultural exchange, and international cooperation. In 2025, several key bilateral events will provide new opportunities for further partnership.

Secondly, China should support Europe’s “security self-reliance” strategy and its goal to avoid the global security landscape being dominated by a single power. Meanwhile, China should seeks European cooperation in promoting peace and addressing the root causes of the Ukraine crisis. Additionally, if Putin makes concessions on this issue, China could deploy peacekeeping forces to the conflict area, upon invitation from Russia and Ukraine, and participate in peacekeeping operations under the framework of the UN or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Conclusion

The Trump 2.0 era underscores a precarious juncture for trilateral relations. Europe’s autonomy aspirations clash with dependency, U.S. unilateralism undermines multilateral frameworks, and China’s role as a stabilizer faces mounting complexity. Scholars emphasize the urgency of transcending zero-sum approaches through inclusive dialogue and institutional cooperation. For China, fostering pragmatic EU engagement and advancing trilateral interaction is pivotal to navigating this volatile landscape and shaping a balanced global order.