European officials congratulated themselves after talks in Geneva over the weekend, suggesting that US President Donald Trump would heed their concerns about imposing a bad peace deal on Ukraine, writes "Politico".
"While there is still work to be done, there is now a solid basis for moving forward," said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, hailing the "good progress" - the result of "a strong European presence" in the talks.
It was certainly "progress" for senior advisers from the EU and Britain to be invited to join the meeting in Switzerland on Sunday after being excluded from America’s original 28-point plan, which they feared was so biased it would encourage Russia to launch further attacks. But the jubilation quickly turned to reality. On Tuesday, the Kremlin rejected Europe’s counter-proposal to end the war, with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s senior foreign policy adviser saying it “does not suit us constructively at all.”
Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky later said that US and Ukrainian officials had agreed on a shortened text that included some of Kiev’s concerns, although there remained “sensitive” issues to be discussed with Trump. U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll will meet with Russian officials in Abu Dhabi today to discuss the peace framework.
The risk for Ukraine now is that Putin could take the U.S. president back to where he started: the 28-point ceasefire agreement that caused a meltdown among officials in Brussels because it would have forced Kiev to cede territory to Moscow, abandon hopes of ever joining NATO, and reduce the size of its army from nearly 1 million to 600,000 soldiers.
If that happens, Zelensky will face an unfortunate choice: either accept the proposal crafted by Trump and Putin, or risk his country’s future in the hope of one day getting enough help from his European friends. These are the same friends who, after nearly four years of war, will not send him their troops, nor the weapons he wants, nor even seize Russia’s frozen assets from their banks to help him buy his own supplies.
Unwillingness to Fight
For some American Republicans, Europeans who object to Trump’s deal and the compromises it will require are deluded. "What’s the alternative?" asked Greg Swenson, chairman of the "Republicans Overseas" in the United Kingdom.
"You can talk a good game, you can attend all these diplomatic meetings, and you can send all your best people to Geneva, but the only way to beat Putin is to fight—and none of them are willing to do that," he summed up.
"So it’s all talk. It all sounds great when you talk about democracy and defending Ukraine, but they're just not ready to do it."
European politicians and officials disagree, pointing to the vast sums of money and weapons their governments have sent to Kiev since the war began nearly four years ago, as well as the economic challenge of reduced Russian trade, especially fossil fuel imports. After the U.S. withdrew its support, Europe has visibly taken steps to fill the gap. In fact, Trump’s initial proposal sent officials and diplomats in Brussels and beyond into a panic, because they knew that Zelensky could not count on Europe to do enough to help Ukraine on its own.
A month ago, European leaders appeared at a summit in Brussels optimistically predicting that they would reach a landmark agreement to use 140 billion euros in frozen Russian assets as a "reparations loan" to provide Kiev with a secure financial footing for at least the next two years. But in a major diplomatic and political blunder, the plan collapsed amid unexpected objections from Belgium.
No breakthrough on assets
Although talks between European Commission officials and EU governments, especially with the Belgians, are intensifying, there has been no breakthrough yet. Some diplomats hope that pressure from Trump will force Belgium and other EU countries that have reservations about the asset freeze plan to join in.
One idea that is not ruled out is to use some of the assets together with joint EU bonds or potentially direct financial contributions from EU governments, officials said. But some EU diplomats fear that the whole idea of a reparations loan for Ukraine using frozen assets would fall apart if the final peace plan included a reference to using those same funds.
The initial plan proposed using the assets in an investment campaign in Ukraine, with half of the proceeds going to the United States - a concept that Europeans have dismissed as "scandalous". Once sanctions against Russia are eventually lifted, however, Euroclear, the Belgium-based financial depository that holds the frozen assets, may have to transfer the money back to Moscow.
That could force EU taxpayers to pick up the slack, a scenario that is likely to weigh heavily on member governments as they consider whether to back the loan idea in the coming weeks.
Then there is the question of keeping the peace. Earlier this year, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer led efforts to drum up support for an international peacekeeping force from volunteer countries that would form a "coalition of the willing". A year earlier, Macron had even floated the idea of "boots on the ground" before the conflict was over.
He no longer speaks like that.
In a sign of how difficult any talk in France about sending troops to Ukraine would be, last week's impassioned appeal by France's new top general, Fabien Mandon, to mayors to prepare citizens for a possible war with Russia sparked a wave of outrage and was condemned by the main political parties.
Mandon warned that if France "is not ready to accept the loss of its children, to suffer economically because priorities will be given to the production of defense products, then we are at risk".
Macron tried to quell the controversy, saying Mandon's words had been taken out of context.
In Germany, Foreign Minister Johann Wadeful pointed out that Berlin "is already making a special contribution to the eastern flank", by has a combat-ready brigade in Lithuania.
"The entire Baltic region is a key area that the Bundeswehr will focus on. I think this is sufficient and comprehensive support for Ukraine," he noted.
The Ukrainians would like a deeper commitment on their own soil, but Western Europeans are wary of making big sacrifices by sending troops to the front line.
"At least Trump is honest about that," Svensson said. "We can defeat Russia. We would defeat them, I think, quickly, assuming there were no nuclear weapons."