SEPT 25 — When Russia’s massive drone assault ripped through Kyiv last month, the aftershocks reverberated well beyond Ukraine’s battered capital.
Among the damaged structures was the EU delegation compound, a symbolic reminder that Europe itself remains on the front line of Moscow’s war.
But the significance of that moment was not confined to bricks and mortar.
What followed was even more telling: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen did not wait for her envoys to file reports or for Nato to convene another meeting.
Instead, she picked up the phone and called US President Donald Trump directly.
According to EU officials familiar with the call, she told Trump bluntly: “This is what Vladimir Putin is capable of. Here’s a clear example of how Putin isn’t keeping his word.”
It was a pointed remark — but also a strategic one.
In bypassing layers of intermediaries, von der Leyen signalled that Brussels was reclaiming its agency in the highest stakes of diplomacy.
For an EU long worried about being sidelined during Trump’s second term, the call was more than crisis management.
It was a breakthrough in the way Europe engages the United States.
From estrangement to engagement
The early months of Trump’s return to the White House were marked by deep European unease.
Trump’s public rhetoric seemed to echo Kremlin talking points, portraying Nato as a burden and Ukraine’s defence as a needless drain on US resources.
At times, his administration appeared willing to bypass Brussels altogether, dealing directly with individual European capitals.
For the EU, this suggested a deliberate marginalisation, a sense that Washington no longer saw value in collective European diplomacy.
But something shifted in June.
Since then, von der Leyen and Trump have established regular communications.
Their conversations may not have the glamour of formal summits, but they carry immense weight.
They represent the reactivation of a critical trans-Atlantic channel, one that acknowledges the EU as a necessary actor, not just an appendage to Nato or an afterthought in Washington’s calculations.
The change reflects both sides’ recognition of reality.
Europe cannot shield itself from Russia without US support, and the United States cannot manage a global confrontation with Moscow while ignoring Europe’s political and economic clout.
Trump may remain sceptical of NATO burden-sharing, but he understands the strategic value of keeping Europe engaged — and von der Leyen, in turn, has seized the chance to make the EU’s voice impossible to ignore.
Europe’s voice, America’s leverage
The importance of this revived dialogue cannot be overstated.
For Europe, it restores confidence that the EU is not destined to be a passive observer while others decide the fate of Ukraine.
For the United States, it enhances leverage.
A fractured Europe weakens Washington’s hand, but a united EU strengthens it.
Trump may prefer bilateral bargaining, but he recognises that a coherent European stance amplifies America’s negotiating power, especially when confronting Moscow’s duplicity.
The EU’s message to Trump is clear: Ukraine is not just a battlefield, but the testing ground of Europe’s long-term security architecture.
If Putin detects cracks in trans-Atlantic unity, he will push harder.
If he sees a US-EU front that is coordinated, even if not always harmonious, he will be constrained.
The renewed line between Washington and Brussels demonstrates that both understand this strategic reality.
Lessons for Asean
From an Asean perspective, the evolution of US-EU communications offers a timely lesson.
Like the EU, Asean often struggles to make itself heard in a world dominated by great powers.
Institutions with consensus-driven cultures can easily be overshadowed by unilateral actors.
Yet von der Leyen’s decision to engage Trump directly shows that protocol need not be a straitjacket.
Strategic improvisation, when handled with clarity and authority, can restore relevance.
Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, as Asean Chair in 2025, has already demonstrated similar agility.
His decision to intervene directly in the Thai-Cambodian border conflict — calling leaders personally, mobilising Asean observers, and pushing for an immediate ceasefire — was in many ways a Southeast Asian echo of von der Leyen’s outreach.
Instead of waiting for Asean’s deliberative mechanisms to grind forward, Anwar chose speed and personal authority, preventing further bloodshed and mass displacement.
For Asean , the lesson is clear: centrality is not sustained by documents alone, but by the willingness of leaders to engage directly when the stakes demand it.
The EU-US example shows that regional organisations must adapt their diplomatic playbooks if they wish to remain relevant in times of crisis.
A relationship rebuilt
Far from collapsing, trans-Atlantic relations are regaining traction precisely because crisis has demanded it.
The personal rapport between von der Leyen and Trump illustrates a deeper truth: international relations in the 21st century are increasingly defined by leader-to-leader contact.
Institutions remain important, but their influence depends on leaders willing to use them as platforms, not crutches.
Europe will continue to wrestle with Trump’s unpredictability, just as Washington will continue to question Europe’s defence commitments.
But the alternative — estrangement and silence — is untenable.
The re-opening of direct lines proves that both sides still recognise their interdependence.
For Asean and the East Asian Summit in Kuala Lumpur later this year, this development serves as a reminder: alliances and partnerships are not static.
They ebb and flow with circumstances.
Neglect can cause them to wither, but necessity can revive them.
The EU and the United States may squabble, but when confronted with existential threats, they find ways to rebind their ties.
Conclusion
The latest phone calls between Brussels and Washington matter far beyond the trans-Atlantic corridor.
They show that even in a fractured global order, dialogue can be rebuilt.
They show that direct leadership, exercised in moments of crisis, can restore partnerships that appeared to be fraying.
In an era of cascading conflicts — from Ukraine to Gaza to Southeast Asia’s own border disputes — the lesson is both sobering and hopeful.
Strategic communication is not a luxury.
It is survival.
Von der Leyen and Trump, in their unlikely partnership, have proven that despite all predictions of collapse, the trans-Atlantic relationship is not disintegrating.
On the contrary, it is adapting, strengthening, and re-emerging — precisely when the world needs it most.
* Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is professor of Asean Studies at the International Islamic University of Malaysia and director of the Institute of International and Asean Studies (IINTAS).
**This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
