Fiona Hill, Geopolitical Strategist: ‘The US is Giving Russia Super Influence Over Europe’

Introduction

In a stark warning amid escalating tensions in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Fiona Hill, a prominent geopolitical strategist and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center on the United States and Europe, has accused the United States of handing Russia super influence over Europe. This claim comes in response to a high-stakes diplomatic meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, on August 15, 2025. The summit aimed to broker an end to the ongoing war in Ukraine, but Hill labels it a profound betrayal of Ukraine and European security.

Fiona Hill’s credentials lend weight to her critique. From 2017 to 2019, she served as deputy assistant to the president and senior director for European and Russian affairs on the US National Security Council during the first Trump administration. Her insights into US-Russia relations, NATO dynamics, and the Russia-Ukraine war make her a key voice in understanding how such moves could reshape Europe’s geopolitical landscape. Published on November 23, 2025, her interview in Le Monde highlights the risks of bypassing allies in pursuit of a quick peace deal.

Context of the Trump-Putin Anchorage Summit

The Anchorage meeting, captured in imagery by Reuters photographer Kevin Lamarque, symbolizes a bold US push for resolution. Trump set a deadline tied to Thanksgiving, aiming for a deal by year’s end. Yet, Hill argues this overlooks European priorities and exploits Ukraine’s vulnerabilities, including recent corruption allegations surrounding President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Analysis

Fiona Hill’s assessment dissects the Trump administration’s Ukraine mediation efforts as not just flawed but strategically damaging. She describes the initiative as a clear betrayal—first, of Ukraine’s trust in the US as a steadfast ally, and second, of Europe’s collective security framework, including NATO commitments.

Behind-the-Scenes Diplomacy

The negotiations were conducted without consulting Europeans or Ukrainians, a move Hill sees as deliberate isolation. This secrecy undermines transatlantic unity, potentially allowing Russia to dictate terms in what she calls an “information war” victory. Putin, determined to prevail, shifts from battlefield stalemates to diplomatic leverage, with US envoy Steve Witkoff playing a pivotal role.

Battlefield Realities in the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Contrary to narratives of Ukrainian collapse, Hill notes both sides are entrenched in a “horrific conflict.” Russia’s advances have stalled, mirroring Ukraine’s challenges. Claims of Ukraine’s dire straits fuel capitulation demands, but verifiable military reports from sources like the Institute for the Study of War confirm mutual attrition, not one-sided dominance.

Symbolic Timelines and Cultural Disconnects

Trump’s Thanksgiving deadline, while resonant in US culture, holds no relevance in Europe. This US-centric approach, Hill argues, prioritizes domestic optics over sustainable peace, amplifying Russia’s super influence over Europe by sidelining EU and NATO voices.

Summary

In essence, Fiona Hill views the US-led peace push as a strategic misstep that empowers Russia at Europe’s expense. By exploiting Ukraine’s political weaknesses—such as corruption charges—and ignoring allies, the Trump administration risks ceding long-term control over European security to Putin. This geopolitical strategist‘s analysis underscores the fragility of unilateral diplomacy in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, urging a reevaluation of trust in US commitments.

Key Points

Practical Advice

For policymakers, analysts, and citizens tracking the Russia-Ukraine war, Fiona Hill’s perspective offers actionable guidance on navigating complex diplomacy.

Evaluating Diplomatic Initiatives

Always verify stakeholder inclusion: Check if Ukraine, EU leaders, and NATO are at the table. Use tools like official statements from the US State Department or European External Action Service to confirm transparency.

Assessing Battlefield Claims

Rely on independent sources such as Oryx for equipment losses or ISW daily maps for front-line updates. Avoid echo chambers amplifying one-sided victories in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Understanding Geopolitical Influence

Monitor Russia’s hybrid tactics—disinformation, energy leverage, and alliances with actors like China. Track metrics like EU gas dependency reductions (down 80% since 2022 per Eurostat) to gauge resilience against Moscow’s super influence.

Points of Caution

While Fiona Hill’s warnings are grounded, several risks warrant attention in any Ukraine peace deal analysis.

Risks of Premature Capitulation

Rushing terms could legitimize Russia’s 2022 invasion gains, including annexed territories, violating UN resolutions. History shows coerced deals, like Minsk Agreements, often fail without enforcement.

Disinformation Amplification

Corruption narratives around Zelensky, while under investigation, must be contextualized. Transparency International reports note Ukraine’s anti-corruption progress, countering exaggerated weakness claims.

Long-Term European Security

Handing Russia leverage could embolden aggression toward Moldova or the Baltics, straining NATO’s Article 5 credibility.

Comparison

Fiona Hill’s critique invites comparison to prior US-Russia engagements on Ukraine.

Versus Helsinki 2018 Summit

Trump’s 2018 meeting with Putin sidelined NATO allies similarly, drawing rebuke from US Congress. Unlike Anchorage’s Ukraine focus, Helsinki was broader, but both prioritized bilateralism over multilateralism.

Versus Minsk Process (2014-2015)

Minsk I/II involved France, Germany, Ukraine, and Russia under Normandy Format—far more inclusive than Trump’s approach. Minsk’s partial truces highlight the pitfalls of unenforced deals without Ukrainian buy-in.

Versus Biden-Era Support

The Biden administration provided $175B+ in aid (per Kiel Institute), bolstering Ukraine without direct Putin talks. Trump’s mediation shifts to negotiation, risking aid cuts and echoing Hill’s betrayal concerns.

Legal Implications

Legal ramifications of bypassing Ukraine in peace talks are significant, rooted in international law.

Budapest Memorandum (1994)

The US, UK, and Russia pledged to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty in exchange for denuclearization. Unilateral deals undermining this could invite legal challenges at the International Court of Justice.

UN Charter and Aggression

UN General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1 condemns Russia’s invasion. Imposed terms rewarding aggression contravene Article 2(4) prohibiting force, potentially isolating the US diplomatically.

NATO Treaty Obligations

While not directly binding on Ukraine, NATO’s Washington Treaty emphasizes collective defense. Eroding European trust could complicate alliance cohesion, though no direct legal breach occurs absent attack.

Conclusion

Fiona Hill, as a leading geopolitical strategist, illuminates the perils of the US handing Russia super influence over Europe through secretive Ukraine diplomacy. Her analysis reveals a betrayal not just of Kyiv but of transatlantic bonds forged over decades. As the Russia-Ukraine conflict grinds on, balancing swift resolution with inclusive, verifiable processes remains crucial. Stakeholders must heed her call to prioritize collective security, ensuring any peace endures beyond symbolic deadlines.

This episode underscores broader lessons in great-power competition: unilateralism invites exploitation, while alliances deter aggression. Staying informed empowers better geopolitical navigation.

FAQ

Sources

• Le Monde: Fiona Hill Interview (Published November 23, 2025).
• Brookings Institution: Fiona Hill Profile.
• Institute for the Study of War (ISW): Ukraine Conflict Maps.
• Oryx: Visual Confirmation of Losses.
• Kiel Institute: Ukraine Aid Tracker.
• UN General Assembly Resolutions on Ukraine.
• Budapest Memorandum Text (1994).