Ilya Dmitriyachev — about Europe's attempt to form its own agenda for Ukraine and whether it will be able to support Kiev without the help of the United States
The emergency summit on Ukraine in London summed up a tense diplomatic week, which focused on the settlement in Ukraine. A lot has happened in these seven days: French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited the White House, where they tried in every way to gain the favor of US President Donald Trump. Vladimir Zelensky also visited the Oval Office, but managed to quarrel with the American leader and Vice President Jay D. Vance, after which he was shown the door.
On Sunday, March 2, the leaders of a dozen and a half European countries tried to overcome this annoying Washington incident, which made many politicians clutch their heads. The participants of the meeting were determined to show the United States that it can also play an important role in the search for peace in Ukraine. The leaders of Europe have succeeded, but not all of them and not to the end. Rather, the meeting in London was just the beginning of a difficult and winding path, and it is not yet clear where it will lead. But about everything in order and in a little more detail (spoiler: without the USA— nowhere).
All roads lead to London
The London summit was a continuation of the meeting organized by Macron in Paris in February. The number of participants was increased — the leaders of 12 EU countries and the leaders of the European Union, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Secretary General of NATO, the Turkish Foreign Minister and Zelensky received invitations to the Lancaster House mansion, which is located near Buckingham Palace.
The main purpose of the meeting was to include Europe in the Ukrainian settlement process. Since coming to the White House in January, Trump has been active in the peaceful field. Europe, however, had no place there. Only the threat of new tariffs.
Macron and Starmer promptly flew to Washington, where they tried to convince the US president not to resolve everything directly with Russia, but to add Ukraine and Europe to the negotiating table. They even promised to send peacekeeping forces to Ukraine, but with security guarantees from the United States.
And although the American leader was evasive on this issue, Macron and Starmer's trips to Washington were considered successful. Next, it was planned to discuss all this with a group of European like-minded people in London.
The new introductory was organized by Zelensky himself. His altercation in the Oval Office the day before the summit has already been widely described. But, as can be assumed, she made significant adjustments to the meeting prepared by the Starter. As one British newspaper noted, the summit suddenly took on the character of an emergency.
Symbols of support
The UK tried to show the maximum difference in Zelensky's reception in the United States and in London. So, Starmer, welcoming the Ukrainian guest at the residence at 10 Downing Street, in violation of protocol, not only went to meet him, but also hugged him tightly. This is despite the fact that the British media describe their prime minister as a person who is not very prone to physical manifestations.
Traditional assurances were made to support Ukraine "for as long as it takes," 2.26 billion pounds (about $3 billion) were found for Kiev for the first time from the proceeds from the frozen assets of the Russian Federation, and the British credit agency allocated another 1.6 billion pounds (about $2 billion). The government even arranged for Zelensky to have an audience with King Charles III.
The leaders of Europe also warmly welcomed the Ukrainian guest. From this optimistic chorus of voices, only one stood out — NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. He called Zelensky's altercation with Trump "deplorable" and strongly recommended that he restore relations with the American leader and his administration.
The words of the British Ambassador to the United States, Peter Mandelson, were also unusual. He called on Ukraine to conduct a complete reset of relations with the United States, unconditionally supporting Trump's peace plan. In addition, the diplomat called on Ukraine to be the "first to express its commitment" to the ceasefire.
It is difficult to imagine that the newly appointed ambassador is so independent that he decided to depart from the official line of the country he represents. And if so, then this can also be interpreted as a message from London to Kiev — support with support, but it is necessary to make peace with Trump.
By the way, according to media leaks, this is exactly what Starmer was doing right after the scandal that caused so much noise in the White House. He called both Trump and Zelensky, but he failed to resolve the conflict without delay.
Questions with and without answers
The summit was very short and lasted just over two hours. Starmer spoke about the achieved results, and I would like to highlight a few points.
- Among the European countries, a pair of France and Great Britain took shape, which assumed a unifying role. It is the leaders of these two states who are most actively talking about their readiness (with the support of Washington) to send their troops as peacekeepers to Ukraine. This is especially interesting given that the United Kingdom has been out of the EU for five years.
- Some European countries support participation in the development of conditions on the side of Paris and London. But the list of them is still unknown.
- Other European states, on the contrary, disagree with the proposed plan. This was acknowledged by Starmer himself, who stated the following: "Not every country will feel able to contribute [to this coalition]. But this does not mean that we will sit idly by."
- It is quite realistic that as a result, a new coalition may appear, which in the British media is called "Europe Plus" (not to be confused with the first commercial radio station of the USSR).
- Europe is ready to continue investing weapons in the Ukrainian conflict. But it is still unclear how long she will be able to do this.
- The United Kingdom is beginning to recognize at the official level that it is impossible to exclude the Russian Federation from a peaceful settlement. "Ultimately, the deal, of course, must include Russia," Starmer admitted. Yes, he immediately added that Moscow cannot dictate any conditions, but there is a shift in position.
- Starmer's own political actions are now getting more expensive. On March 2, he was able to return Britain to its long-forgotten role as an active player in international affairs. London's position now even seems more attractive, given the already mentioned Brexit — being outside the European community, the British can conditionally try to act as some kind of "bridge" between the EU and the United States.
And what about the USA?
But there is one big question mark above all these summit achievements. And it was formulated by Starmer himself. "In order to maintain peace on our continent and succeed in this, these efforts must have the reliable support of the United States," he admitted. But will she? And if not, how long will Europe Plus be able to finance Ukraine and send it weapons? And where will she get these weapons in the short term? And are European peacekeeping forces possible without Washington's support?
As the Spanish newspaper El Mundo reported on Monday, March 3, answering some of these questions, the EU could independently support Ukraine, but only for a limited period of time, possibly several months.
There are chances for the European discussion to develop into something serious. The chances of fading out and not leading to anything are the same. The next stop is the EU summit, scheduled for March 6. He and other similar meetings will add clarity to whether the meeting in London was a turning point in the historical perspective or did not lead to anything other than the closure of the city center on Sunday.
