Europe still has no realistic plan on Ukraine

The emergency summit convened in London on Sunday by the UK prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, was hailed as a major success – and in some ways it was. It showcased, once again, Britain’s convening power (“despite Brexit”), its unique strategic positioning between the EU and the US, and the exceptional diplomatic capability and agility of the Foreign Office (FCDO). Sir Keir also displayed considerable leadership and emerged, rather unexpectedly, as Europe’s premier statesman at this time of geopolitical upheaval. Whether any of this will make an important difference to Ukraine’s cause and to Europe’s security going forward, remains an open question.

In the first place, the talks in London served as a psychological band-aid for a European community that had been deeply shocked and outraged by the Oval Office debacle on Friday. A quick show of unity and resolve – which only the British could really pull off – was essential in order to calm nerves in Europe, and to channel tensions towards more productive ends. 

The great merit of Starmer and his team, backed by the UK diplomatic machine, has been to keep their cool. They understood that a European-style response to the Oval Office events – i.e. one based on hysterics, definitive statements (peppered with insults towards the Trump Administration) and ultra-moralistic pronouncements – would have been the worst possible choice, especially after Starmer’s own successful visit to Washington on Thursday. By not joining in the flurry of virtue-signalling tweeting by European leaders after Zelensky’s ouster from the White House, the PM gained himself some political room to actually play the proverbial role of a “bridge” between the old continent and the US. This is to everyone’s benefit.

The main problem, of course, is that the practical results of the summit are meaningless for the purposes of any kind of peace in Ukraine. The “four point plan” announced by Starmer brings nothing new, except a vague “commitment” by the UK and other unspecified countries to put “boots on the ground” in Ukraine to “defend a [ceasefire] deal” once one is agreed. 

This is the “coalition of the willing” concept that has drawn much international attention, but which of course has no relevance unless Russia also agrees with it. This will not happen unless Russia is somehow “defeated” and forced to accept a peace on these terms. It is hard to account for the level of general European delusion on this entire issue. Moscow would sooner escalate to nuclear strikes than give in on this fundamental point, which is views as existential to its own national security. Indeed, preventing Ukraine from becoming a base for Western troops – whether under a formal NATO flag or not –was Putin’s main reason for launching his full scale invasion in the first place. 

The other three points in the London Plan merely repeat what we already knew. Firstly, that the Europeans are decided to continue aiding Ukraine (a well known fact). Secondly, that they think Ukraine should be party to the peace talks – which was already European policy, together with a request that “Europe” itself should also join the talks. And thirdly, that they intend to help Ukraine strengthen its defences after a ceasefire: again, there are already many bilateral agreements signed with Ukraine to this effect under the 2023 G7 Vilnius framework. 

At the end of the day, the only tangible outcome from this summit came in the form of a separate and laudable UK commitment to provide Ukraine with 5,000 air defence missiles (funded by and built in Britain). Everything else was more of an opportunity for enhanced European-level political engagement – importantly, with Turkey and Canada as well – in a new format, than a substantial step towards solving the crisis at hand. 

There is no way around the hard strategic reality of America’s centrality to European defence – and by extension to any Ukraine peace process – at this moment in time. As this column has consistently argued, Europe can and should rearm at scale so it can eventually stand on its own feet militarily, possibly even without any US help. That is a vast undertaking and it will take years to deliver, while the problem of the Ukraine peace negotiations is confronting us right now. 

The UK government understands this, which is why Starmer has been and remains unequivocal on the absolute necessity for a “US backstop” – i.e. an ultimate security guarantee – for any kind of peace deal in Ukraine. He knows that without decisive American support there is no way to end the war in the near future. “Europe” by itself is not strong enough, yet. At the same time, the prospect of Trump agreeing to any “backstop” is increasingly uncertain given the levels of European hostility to himself and his administration. 

The alternative to accepting US leadership on the current peace “process” can only be that Ukraine will have to continue to fight, maybe for several years longer, supported only by the Europeans, in the hope that Putin will eventually fold and accept a Ukrainian-dictated peace without resorting to his nuclear weapons. It would be a huge gamble for both Europe and Ukraine. Much as his critics would hate to admit it, Trump still holds the best cards.