For years, European leaders have worried about reducing their dependence on the capricious United States. Monday, during a meeting in a hurry in Paris, the hands of the hand gave way to the harassed acceptance of a new world in which the most powerful ally in Europe began to act more like An opponent.
The plan of President Trump to negotiate a peace regulation in Ukraine with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, neither the Ukrainians nor the Europeans invited to participate, forced leaders bristling in capitals like Berlin, London and Paris to Face a series of difficult choices, painful compromise and expensive new burdens.
Already on the table is the possibility that Great Britain, France, Germany and other countries will deploy tens of thousands of soldiers in Ukraine as a soldiers of peace. European governments affirm the need to increase the major increases in their military budgets – if not at 5% of the gross domestic product required by Mr. Trump, then at the levels which have not been seen since the days of cold war in the early 1980s .
“Everyone is excited at the moment, naturally,” said Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King’s College in London. “What is clear is that whatever happens, Europe will have to intensify.”
This could put its leaders in a difficult situation. While public support for Ukraine remains strong through Europe, committing troops to a potentially dangerous duty for Ukrainian soil could quickly become a national political responsibility. Estimates on the size of a peacekeeping force vary considerably, but in any scenario, it would be an extremely expensive business at a time of limited budgets.
President Emmanuel Macron of France, who for the first time launched the idea of a peacekeeping force last year – to generalized skepticism in Europe – has been weakened since his decision to call the legislative elections Last summer and left it with a fragile government.
Germany may not have a new coalition government for weeks after its election on February 23. On Monday, his chancellor, Olaf Scholz, rejected the speeches of peacekeepers as “completely premature” and “very inappropriate” while the fights were still raging.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Great Britain, who does not have to face the voters for four years, said that Great Britain was open to “put our troops on the ground if necessary”. But former military officials said that after years of budget cuts, the British army was not equipped to lead a long -scale long -scale mission in Ukraine.
“Frankly, we do not have the figures, and we do not have the equipment”, Richard Dannatt, a former leader of the British army, said to the BBC. He estimated that Great Britain should provide up to 40,000 soldiers with a force of 100,000 people.
For some Europeans, it is too early to talk about a post-American era on the continent. Scholz and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned the leaders not to push the Transatlantic Alliance, whatever the current tensions.
In practice, a peacekeeping force would be difficult without logistical support from the United States. American security insurance, analysts said, were crucial to make it politically acceptable in European capitals, where some leaders will have to gain approval from their parliaments. Starmer spoke of an “American security net”, saying that it was “the only way to effectively dissuade Russia from attacking Ukraine again”.
Professor Freedman said he thought that senior officials from the Trump administration like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the national security advisor Michael Waltz understood these realities and were not determined to shoot the US European safety umbrella. But he said that Mr. Trump’s objectives were more difficult to decipher; His desire for unhindered power at home was deeply alarming for Europeans.
“In the past, you supposed that it was a serious and competent country,” said Professor Freedman. “It is annoying to think that it may not be the case. There is a feeling that the railings are simply not there. »»
At the Munich security conference last week last week, vice-president JD Vance delivered a puffy speech in which he urged Europeans to stop fleeing far-right parties and accused them of removing freedom from expression.
These comments prompted anxiety among Europeans. “We must fear that our common value base will no longer be so common,” said Christoph Heungen, who presided over the conference. Mr. Heusgen, who was clearly emotional at the end of his speech, said later that his strong feelings were because he was leaving his work and was not a reaction to Mr. Vance’s comments.
Many Germans considered Mr. Vance’s comments as cheeky electoral interference. The vice-president, who jumped a meeting with Mr. Scholz, found the time to meet the co-leader of the extreme right alternative for Germany, or AFD, Alice Weidel. The traditional parties of Germany refused to enter into coalitions with AFD, which German intelligence agencies classify as an extremist organization.
Trump, in the meantime, threatened to hit the European Union with radical prices. This could damage the economies of the block, which would make defense defense even more difficult. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte called on alliance members to increase their expenses to “considerably more than 3%” of gross domestic product (the United States spent 3.4%).
In 2023, Germany spent 1.5% of its gross domestic product in defense, while France spent 2.1% and Great Britain 2.3%.
Beyond political and economic provocations, European leaders find it difficult to give meaning to the Trump administration’s strategy for Ukraine. The remarks of Mr. Hegseth have reported a reduction in American support to the Ukraine war objectives – something that European leaders regret but recognize in private that they share.
However, the secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, during a visit to the Ukrainian capital, kyiv, last week, suggested that the United States could provide a “long-term security shield” for Ukraine, provided to have access to the precious minerals of the country. Trump’s announcement of negotiations between him and Mr. Putin blinded European leaders and President Volodymyr Zelensky from Ukraine.
“A contradiction crosses the approach of the United States,” wrote Nigel Gould-Davies, principal researcher in Russia and Eurasia at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a research group in London, An online test. “This said that the United States will negotiate the end of the war alone, but also that Europe alone must pay and apply a result that it has not played in the decision.”
This assumes that Mr. Trump can conclude an agreement with Mr. Putin. Analysts note that the United States has already granted Russia two major concessions – excluding Ukrainian membership in NATO and suggesting that it is not realistic for Ukraine to recover all its territory – without receiving anything in return.
Some compare Mr. Trump’s approach to his nuclear diplomacy with the chief of North Korea, Kim Jong-un, during his first mandate. Meet Mr. Kim in Singapore, Mr. Trump gave him a precious concession – more military exercises between the United States and South Korea – without obtaining a reciprocal gesture. Negotiations have broken out and North Korea has not yet abandoned its nuclear arsenal.
In this case, analysts said that the chances of a rapid breakthrough could save European leaders to have to commit troops, at least for the moment.
“Unless the position on the ground improves considerably to the advantage of Ukraine, it is difficult to imagine that Russia is part of an agreement which allows a large number of NATO troops – Including the British – on its border, “said Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director general of the Royal United Royal Services Institute, a research group in London.
Professor Freedman said Trump should persuade Putin to accept acceptable conditions for Mr. Zelensky – an extremely long shot.
“We are far from the circumstances where it makes sense,” he said about a peacekeeping force. “I cannot exceed the incompatibility between what Trump can offer and what the Russians want.”
