If Europe cannot unite, there is no hope for Ukraine
This weekend there are intense consultations between the key players about whether the US-Russian-conceived 28-point peace plan can be amended in Ukraine’s favour or, if not, and talks break down, whether they might support President Zelensky’s government to fight on. Time is short: the US is saying Ukraine must accept by Thursday or face the withdrawal of American military support and intelligence.
Facing this grim deadline, the leaders of France, Germany and the UK took advantage of the diplomatic calendar for talks on the margins of the G20 summit this weekend in South Africa.
In a bid to extend the deadline, leaders at the summit, including Sir Keir Starmer, issued a statement saying the plan is “a basis which will require additional work”.
They expressed concern at its reduction in the size of Ukraine’s armed forces “which would leave Ukraine vulnerable to future attack” and insisted that it embody the principle “that borders must not be changed by force”.
Privately, they know that their ability to support Ukraine if it spurns the Trump plan and chooses to fight on are distinctly limited. Europe cannot, for example, match the quality of US intelligence, something that is particularly important for striking deep inside Russia.
If there is a positive aspect to this, it is that European countries have increased production of munitions and are now churning out millions of drones for their embattled ally.
But although the war is now nearing the four-year mark, they have not been able to raise production of some key items, like air defence missiles, to the point where they could compensate for a stoppage of American supplies.
The failure to find European consensus over the seriousness of Russia’s challenge, and the steps needed to counter it, is most telling in the economic sphere. Several EU countries are still importing Russian energy, for example.
An absence of unity on the financing of Ukraine’s war has proven even more damaging. Arguments have been going on for years between EU states about whether euros 140 billion in frozen Russian assets should be used to finance the war.
Fearing the financial and legal consequences of simply confiscating the money, European diplomats came up with the idea of using it as security for loans. But they cannot find consensus even on this approach.
At a meeting last month, despite having debated the issue during so many previous summits, EU leaders failed to agree a plan to indemnify Belgium (where technically the Russian money is held), to get billions flowing to Ukraine. Zelensky’s treasury, meanwhile, is running on empty.
But just as those European leaders who are desperate to break this deadlock scramble to get a consensus, the Trump plan now threatens to divert the frozen Russian money for its own purposes.
Point 14 of the blueprint envisages using much of it for reconstruction in Ukraine, allowing, with typical Trumpian flourish, the US to skim 50 per cent of the profits from rebuilt enterprises there.
The White House has, in this same element of its plan, tried to commit the EU to invest billions in rebuilding the country too.
The European leaders’ joint statement from the G20 said: “The implementation of elements relating to the European Union and relating to Nato would need the consent of EU and Nato members respectively.”
It is one of a few places in the text where the need for further consultations with allies may allow the Europeans a chance to modify Trump’s plan or indeed to delay the deadline.
On Friday, Polish prime minister Donald Tusk also said in response to the plan, which contained a clause stipulating that “European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland”, that “all the decisions concerning Poland will be taken by Poles”.
And while Starmer, President Macron and Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, will all be attempting to engage Trump on the phone, their national security advisers have been tasked with ironing out the wrinkles. This is where the UK’s Jonathan Powell, who was widely credited with getting relations back on track after Zelenskyy’s disastrous February encounter at the White House, when he was harangued by Trump and JD Vance, the vice-president, as an obstacle to peace, can make a contribution.
Powell’s approach, which was to urge humility by the Ukrainian president while agreeing to the idea of a ceasefire and thus putting the onus for saying no back on to Russia, got the fractious “coalition of the willing” through the summer. But American patience now appears to be spent, with officials briefing that they are not interested in Ukrainian or European attempts to rewrite the 28-point plan.
With Trump turning up the pressure again, Zelensky addressed his nation on Friday, speaking outside under a glowering sky, of the “very tough choice” they now face. If he continues the “never disagree with Trump publicly” path of recent months, he could face mounting internal dissent over a deal that effectively blesses Russia’s seizure of one fifth of Ukraine.
He would be relying on continuing Russian maximalist demands to be the obstruction, as they have throughout the past months. But that is a dangerous gamble, and if the Kremlin goes along with this latest pitch, which it has undoubtedly had a key role in shaping, Zelensky will face the choice of folding or fighting – with only Europe to rely on.
Anticipating this dilemma, he addressed the country’s western neighbours during Friday’s speech. “We count on our European friends who fully understand that Russia is not somewhere far away – it’s right next to the EU’s borders, that Ukraine today is the only shield separating comfortable European life from Putin’s plans,” he said, adding: “We believe: Europe will stand with us.”
Fighting on would push his exhausted nation to the limits of its endurance. And it would require Europe to dig deep politically and financially, somehow discovering a hitherto elusive unity of purpose to fill the gap left by America.
The Times
More Coverage
‘Frustrated’ Tony Blair plotting policy overhaul to save UK Labour
For Ukraine’s European allies, the latest attempt by President Trump to impose a deal provokes anxiety but is hardly unexpected. They have known almost since the president’s inauguration that he wants the “win” of a peace deal and regards securing what follows as Europe’s problem.