President Emmanuel Macron of France summoned a handful of European leaders to Paris for an emergency meeting on Monday (Feb. 17). The gathering was partly a reaction to top US officials heading to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday to initiate direct talks with Russia about its conflict in Ukraine. European leaders were also concerned President Donald Trump would negotiate a peace deal with Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, without including members of the European Union (EU). But are they really worried about Trump freezing them out, or was the last-minute get-together a performance to seem relevant?
The Paris summit was primarily an effort to bring “together all the partners interested in peace and security” to discuss “the situation in Ukraine and security issues in Europe,” said Macron’s office in a statement. Yet European leaders differed on how to respond to President Trump’s “policy shift on Ukraine, with France and Britain pushing for security guarantees and Germany bristling at any suggestion troops could be deployed,” said Radio France Internationale, a French public radio station for news.
No formal statements or announcements were made following the meeting, but some of Europe’s finest spoke to the press and posted comments on social media. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told reporters afterward that he was “prepared to consider committing British forces on the ground alongside others if there is a lasting peace agreement” and a “US backstop.”
Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany said debating about putting peacekeepers in Ukraine now was “completely premature” and “highly inappropriate” because the war is still happening. “There must be no division of security and responsibility between Europe and the USA,” said Scholz. “NATO is based on the fact that we always act together and share the risk, ensuring our security. This must not be called into question.” A few nations shared Scholz’s views, including Poland and Spain.
Some in the EU were concerned that if Putin and Trump came to a quick ceasefire agreement, Russia would reorganize and prepare another attack on Ukraine or set its aims on a different country. “Russia is threatening all of Europe now, unfortunately,” Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen of Denmark told reporters.
Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof said he did not perceive America’s recent actions as disengaging from Europe but as encouraging it to ramp up its military spending and become more involved in Ukraine’s security. “We are sending the message back that we are in it together,” said Schoof, adding that if they could agree on how to contribute, maybe they would eventually be included in the peace talks.
Can they agree on anything, though? Maybe, but the reality is that “[f]or an uncomfortable number of decisions, the EU needs the backing of all 27 nations,” said Defense News.
Just to clarify: Macron’s reaction to being shut out from discussions in the Middle East was to call his own meeting and not include all the respective nations. So the urgent gathering was plagued by division from the get-go, “with several EU states voicing frustration at being excluded from the Elysee Palace talks,” said Andrew Latham, a tenured professor at Macalester College (Minnesota), in RealClear Defense (RCD). “Italy’s Giorgia Meloni has criticized the selective invitations, highlighting just how fractured Europe remains. Far from projecting strength, the gathering in Paris is yet another reminder that the continent cannot even coordinate among itself, let alone influence the broader global order.” What would they have brought to the negotiations in Saudi Arabia then? Latham explained:
“They have no unified military strategy, no credible deterrence posture, and no leverage beyond empty diplomatic statements. Worse still, European capitals remain divided on fundamental questions about Ukraine’s future. Some leaders, like Emmanuel Macron, flirt with the idea of sending Western troops to Ukraine in a desperate bid to remain relevant. Others, like Germany’s Olaf Scholz, continue to drag their feet on military aid while wringing their hands over the supposed risks of escalation. Such incoherence makes Europe not only a weak actor but a liability in serious strategic discussions.”
Besides, the meeting in Saudi Arabia between Russian and US officials to discuss the conflict in Ukraine was “more about how to set up future peace talks rather than about the substance of them,” said The New York Times. It wasn’t “reasonable and feasible to have everybody sitting at the table,” said Gen. Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, speaking to reporters at NATO headquarters in Brussels.
Then, during a press conference yesterday at Mar-a-Lago – after discussions had ended between his delegation and Russian officials in Saudi Arabia – Trump suggested it was time for Zelensky to hold an election. “We have a situation where we haven’t had elections in Ukraine, where we have martial law,” said the president.
Zelensky, of course, would “never accept any decisions between the United States and Russia about Ukraine,” he told NBC News over the weekend, adding that there is no “leader in the world who can really make a deal with Putin without us about us.” Yet, after a call with Putin last week, Trump promised Zelensky he would include him when the time came to make those decisions.
Maybe European leaders got ahead of themselves. How can they sit at the table when it has yet to be set? However, Trump’s team excluding the EU from recent discussions may have encouraged its nations to step up. If not, then Macron’s “emergency” meeting probably didn’t accomplish much except to increase the division within his union. Debate is good, but it’s only productive when words turn into actions – otherwise, it’s just theater.