Philippe Ricard, Le Monde's diplomacy correspondent, answered readers' questions on the role of France and Europe in the negotiations on the war in Ukraine from Washington ahead of Emmanuel Macron's meeting with his American counterpart, Donald Trump.
Philippe Ricard: Europe is trying to convince Donald Trump's United States to give it a place at the negotiating table outlined by the US and Russia. It knows that Vladimir Putin refuses to include it in the discussions and understands that the Americans are wavering on the issue. However, Europe is all the more motivated to take part in the talks because it considers that its security interests depend to a large extent on the fate of Ukraine. A simple ceasefire, for example, without a "lasting" peace agreement, risks being no more than a pause before Russia resumes its full-scale offensive. This is why it is supporting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky so that he can also be involved in the discussions, which is no easy task, especially for the Russian side, after three years of large-scale invasion of his country by Russian forces.
In an attempt to gain leverage, some European governments, starting with France and the United Kingdom, are ready to deploy forces on the ground after a possible ceasefire, to monitor compliance alongside Ukrainian troops. This idea is rejected by Russia and, according to European capitals, would require support from the US.
Mid-week, US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz announced that Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer might travel to Washington together to meet Trump. According to Le Monde's information, the idea didn't materialize as the French president insisted on seeing his American counterpart face-to-face, which the Elysée Palace denies... For Macron, it's a question of asserting his European leadership on the continent's security issues, even if France and the United Kingdom are working together to establish the "security guarantees" that could be given to Ukraine to avoid the resumption of war, in the event of a cessation of hostilities. Paris and London are at the forefront of discussions on the deployment of forces in Ukraine. They are expected to outline their proposals to the White House this week.
The debate about sending European troops to Ukraine was put forward by Macron a year ago at a meeting of European leaders in Paris devoted to support for Kyiv. The French president's suggestion caused an uproar within the European Union. For Paris, the idea was not to send troops to the front line but to help Ukrainian forces with training, mine clearance and border surveillance with Belarus. The same evening, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz countered the French president's position, saying that there was no question of sending German soldiers to a country attacked by Russia, for fear of escalating relations with Moscow, a nuclear-armed power.
The debate had died down but was revived at the end of last year in the run-up to Trump's return, who is keen to negotiate with Russia. From now on, the main purpose of sending European troops would be to monitor compliance with an eventual ceasefire, dissuading Russia from resuming fighting.
Thank you for your question, which highlights the complexity of Europe's position vis-à-vis the Trump administration. It's clear that European capitals are flabbergasted by the way Trump is dealing with Putin's Russia. Even before negotiations got underway, the American president made major concessions to the master of the Kremlin, such as refusing to allow Kyiv to join NATO. The fear on the European side is that the US will align itself with Russian positions to force a "deal" to the detriment of Kyiv and its security.
Most European capitals take this line, despite a few voices, such as that of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who fully supports the White House's approach. The problem is that Europeans are vulnerable and highly dependent on the US for their security, as the war in Ukraine has shown. They are providing much of the effort to help the Ukrainians militarily and financially, but the war would have been over long ago had it not been for Biden's US contribution. The challenge now is to convince Washington to continue helping Ukraine, without further antagonizing Trump.
On the contrary, to maintain US support, many countries are keen to continue buying US military equipment, in order to extend the security "guarantee" that Europe has enjoyed for decades.
Ukraine initially rejected the agreement, considering it too unbalanced, at the risk of encouraging the plundering of its resources by its American "ally." A kind of diktat generally imposed on the aggressor in past conflicts, and not on an ally. However, under pressure from Washington and in an attempt to calm relations between Zelensky and Trump, negotiations have resumed. According to Ukrainian officials, they are progressing well, and an amended agreement could be signed this week. In addition to gaining control over its natural resources, a large proportion of which are located in Russian-occupied territories, Kyiv hopes above all to obtain continued American support in return for a "deal," at a time when Trump and his entourage have been threatening for months to withdraw their military support.
Indeed, nothing is certain from Trump and his administration, whose brutality is shaking European allies, already shocked by the oligarchic nature of the new American power, allied to Tech bosses like Elon Musk. That said, the Ukrainians also have a stake in securing, at least in the medium term, some form of American support. But this blackmail is very much resented in Europe, as it is in Ukraine.
Europe considers that it has been facing an existential danger since 2022, with Russia's large-scale invasion of Ukraine. On the whole, it is determined to defend itself by helping Ukraine but refrains from entering the war directly by sending ground troops. On the other side of the Atlantic, Trump is the first to say that the US is not directly involved in the conflict and that it is taking place a long way from US territory.
He is also seeking to turn the page on years of American interventionism, a policy pursued notably under the influence of the neoconservatives in the time of President Bush junior, with NATO's intervention in Afghanistan, followed by the invasion of Iraq in 2003, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. In addition, Trump intends to disengage from the European continent to concentrate American power in Asia, but not without abandoning the defense of American interests in regions under his control, with neo-imperialist overtones that contrast with the isolationism of some elected Republicans.
Even after the invasion of Ukraine, President Macron tried to keep in touch with Putin, but to no avail until their last phone call in September 2022. With Russia pushing its advantage on the ground, it's hard to imagine a resumption of dialogue with Moscow. That said, if negotiations do take place, and if the Europeans persist in wanting to play a role, contacts with the Russian regime will have to be resumed. This is all the more difficult for the Europeans, who regard Putin as a war criminal, given that the master of the Kremlin will, on the contrary, seek to bypass them by addressing himself directly to Trump, as we have seen over the past 10 days.
In the event of negotiations, it is clear that Russia will seek to obtain the lifting of Western sanctions against it. If the American administration commits to this, the Europeans will resist before giving in on this point. But these measures are renewed every six months, and countries seeking to challenge them, such as Hungary and Slovakia, will be able to block their continuation, to Putin's great advantage.
Many European leaders, and indeed the continent's citizens, feel let down and betrayed by the Trump administration when it appears to be aligning itself with Russian demands to conclude a ceasefire agreement as quickly as possible. The Europeans are taken by surprise by this kind of alliance reversal if confirmed. Hence Macron's or Starmer's idea of trying to influence the course of negotiations before it's too late. But there's no guarantee they'll succeed. One of the Europeans' strengths is that they are already carrying part of the burden, which Trump seems to ignore.
Overall, since 2022, Europe considers that it has made a greater solidarity effort than the US, even though its military support is slightly lower. Clearly, the continent is going to have to find the means to do more, not only to extend its aid to Kyiv, especially if Washington withdraws but also to strengthen its defense capabilities. The realization is violent, even for the continent's most Atlanticist countries, such as Germany or Denmark, now under pressure from Trump over Greenland. But the security of European countries is at stake, as the Russian threat will not go away, even in the event of a "peace agreement" with the Kremlin.
From a European point of view, the US does not have the legitimacy to negotiate on behalf of Ukraine, without involving it in discussions with Moscow. European leaders repeat that there can be no agreement on Ukraine without Ukraine and on Europe without Europe. At this stage, this has not prevented Trump from renewing contact with Putin, initiating talks on Ukraine and aiming to be in Moscow on May 9 to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the end of WWII. A lunar situation for Europeans... Ukraine has already said that it will refuse an agreement that does not guarantee its interests. It can indeed continue to fight, but it is highly dependent on Western military support and will probably not be able to hold out for long if the US cuts it off, especially if the Europeans are unable to step up their efforts.
NATO allies are skeptical about the ability and willingness of the US to come to their rescue in the event of a Russian offensive against one of the members of the alliance. However, the countries most exposed to the Russian threat – Poland and the Baltic States – continue to rely on NATO. They do not want to cut ties with Washington and hope to be able to consolidate their ties, notably through the purchase of defense equipment. At the same time, however, they are increasingly sensitive to calls, especially from France, to beef up European defense and increase cooperation between European manufacturers in the sector.
The Trump administration, for its part, is not talking about the withdrawal of the US from the alliance but may decide to withdraw US troops deployed in Europe, or discredit, by mere rhetoric, the idea of mutual assistance in the event of Russian aggression, the famous Article 5 at the heart of NATO. The last few days have undoubtedly accelerated the pace of reflection among Europeans, even if this kind of investment will take years to strengthen the continent's defense capabilities, so as to be less dependent on the US.