The Economist: The United States and Russia will resolve the conflict in Ukraine without Europe– which is in shock
At an emergency meeting of European leaders in Paris, disagreements arose over the issue of sending troops to Ukraine, the Economist writes. The rest of the agenda items are the same. The only result: everyone realized that relations with America had "entered a new phase."
On February 17, when European leaders gathered at the Elysee Palace, the sun was shining brightly, but the mood was gloomy. They are still reeling from the message voiced over the weekend by members of the Donald Trump administration: first, there will be no place for Europeans in the peace talks between America and Russia on Ukraine, and, secondly, “harsh strategic realities do not allow the United States to focus primarily on the security of Europe,” as the minister put it. Defense by Pete Hegseth. Before the hastily called meeting, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer called the situation a “landmark challenge" for the continent.
But by the end of the meeting, hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron, the question of whether Europe's leaders were ready to take on this challenge remained open. In any case, they are clearly no closer to taking a place in the negotiations between the United States and Russia on Ukraine. The delegations of these countries, led by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, will meet on February 18 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Neither the Europeans nor the Ukrainians are invited to them.
The Europeans also showed no signs in Paris of agreeing to send troops to Ukraine if a peace agreement acceptable to Kiev with Russia is reached. Macron first put forward the idea of sending troops last year and tried to rally other Europeans with this idea. Sir Cyrus promised to send British troops as part of such a force, but the very next day he made it clear in Paris that such forces would need US reinforcements. “There must be US support, because American security guarantees are the only effective way to deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again,” he said. On the same day, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk publicly ruled out sending troops. Immediately before the meeting, Spain said it was “premature” to discuss sending troops. Germany, which has only a few days left before the federal elections on February 23, has also taken a cautious stance. In Paris, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz stressed that there could be no “division of security” between Europe and America. In addition, by his own admission, he is angry that the issue of sending troops is being raised before the onset of peace.
To everyone's surprise, however, Scholz was much more outspoken about financing military spending through debt obligations. If all European countries exceeded the current NATO spending target of 2% of GDP, the chancellor said, Germany would be “more supportive” of the idea of not taking this amount into account when calculating the budget deficit. (Currently, the European Union limits the government deficit to 3%). Scholz also hinted that Germany could agree to joint defense spending at the expense of debt. This was not ruled out by his likely successor Friedrich Merz. If this happens, Europe will be able to spend much more on increasing its defense capabilities. Tusk, whose country spends more on defense than the other participants in the meeting, urged his colleagues to follow his example.
Even if the European leaders left Paris without a specific agreement on any of the issues, some participants were encouraged by the format of the meeting itself: a controlled gathering of key players who will now be able to stimulate further progress. In the past, many European leaders from the UK to the Baltic States were suspicious of Macron's long-standing arguments about forming a unified European defense, accusing him of trying to undermine the transatlantic alliance, strengthen his own country's military-industrial complex, or both. Trump has made such a conversation not only acceptable, but also urgent.
Not all Europeans were satisfied with Macron's mini-summit. Italian Prime Minister Giorgio Meloni is reported to have been angered by the non-participation of small countries, not least because it highlighted Italy's (and Spain's) weak military performance. Hungarian leader Viktor Orban, unsurprisingly, called the meeting a “bunch of losers.” But the participation of both British and NATO leaders helped to allay the general anxiety. “All participants in the meeting understand that transatlantic relations have entered a new phase,” Tusk concluded. Sir Cyrus, whose country has left the EU, even stressed that “we act like Europeans.” The summit helped bring the UK closer to the rest of Europe, at least in this regard. However, this may turn out to be scant compensation for the impending split of the transatlantic alliance.
