LONDON – Key European leaders have failed to agree on a united response to US President Donald Trump’s decision to initiate direct talks with Russia regarding a ceasefire in Ukraine without involving European nations.
After an emergency meeting convened by French President Emmanuel Macron on February 17, European heads of government acknowledged the critical challenge to the continent’s security architecture. “Europe’s security is at a turning point. And yes, it’s about Ukraine, but also about us,” stated European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
However, no concrete plans were presented to address Europe’s security needs or protect Ukraine’s interests from potentially being compromised in a deal between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Consequently, the idea of Britain and France stationing European troops in Ukraine to provide reassurance appears to have faltered.
President Trump’s February 12 announcement of direct talks with Russia without European consultation shocked European leaders. In exchange for Russia halting its offensive against Ukraine, the US agreed to allow Russia to retain occupied Ukrainian territory. Trump also indicated that America would not play a formal role in ensuring Ukraine’s future security arrangements.
Attempts by European governments to persuade the US to alter its course during a gathering in Munich over the past weekend were firmly rebuffed by US Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth, who asserted that “stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.”
President Macron hosted the Paris summit to coordinate a European response, focusing on providing security reassurances to Ukraine and strengthening Europe’s defenses to compensate for America’s fading security guarantee. Unfortunately, the meeting failed to achieve these goals.
The idea of a European military deployment to Ukraine faced numerous challenges, including insufficient troop numbers and the lack of US support. Furthermore, internal divisions among European nations hampered efforts to present a united front. While British Prime Minister Keir Starmer initially expressed willingness to contribute troops, he later conceded that a US security guarantee was crucial, despite the Americans’ refusal to offer such a guarantee.
Discussions about increased defense expenditures also fell short, with no additional financial commitments made. The Paris summit highlighted Europe’s divisions and sense of helplessness rather than promoting security cooperation.
Mr. Macron’s decision to limit the meeting to select European leaders, excluding those from countries bordering Russia, further exacerbated tensions. Many European leaders criticized the summit for its lack of strategic sense and preparation, resulting in unfocused discussions and negligible outcomes.
In conclusion, the Paris emergency summit was perceived as an exercise in European virtue signaling, portraying leaders as purposeful despite deep divisions and ineffective responses to the crisis.
Jonathan Eyal is based in London and Brussels and writes on global political and security issues.