Europeans in NATO will have to act much faster and more active if they don't want to be completely isolated from the peace talks in Ukraine, because the battle for Europe has been under way for a long time, "Politico" and ARD write.
It's been less than a week since Donald Trump spoke to Russian President Vladimir Putin on the phone, after which he announced that rapid peace talks in Ukraine were starting. Several meetings are planned. The first, in Riyadh - between the foreign ministers of the US and Russia - has already begun. Direct talks between Trump and Putin are also expected. All this, without having discussed the topic with NATO allies in advance.
Europe must decide quickly this time
Making quick decisions has not been the strongest discipline of Europeans so far, note Christian Feld and Tina Hassel from the ARD. However, French President Emmanuel Macron managed to organize a meeting in Paris with lightning speed. This was an opportunity for Europeans to send a signal to Saudi Arabia, even before the meetings there began.
After the talks in Paris with the participation of high-ranking representatives of the EU and NATO, there was no shortage of messages to symbolize unity. But the meeting in Paris remained more of an “important symbol”, and it will only become clear in the coming days whether European leaders are able to present a common package of measures to end the war – for support for Ukraine, for a ceasefire there, and also for how Europeans can strengthen their own defense, commented Claudia Mayor from the German Foundation “Science and Politics“. Such a package would send a strong signal, she believes. “It would increase the chances that the negotiations would not be conducted over their heads, but that they would participate in them. And that should be the goal.“
Will there be European peacekeepers in Ukraine?
However, such a signal to Donald Trump has not yet been sent. This is evident in two examples, notes ARD: First of all, it is not clear whether there is a readiness to send peacekeeping forces to Ukraine. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has already announced that he could imagine such a thing. The host of the meeting, Macron, had previously proposed such an option for discussion. Poland, however, has made it clear that it does not plan to send its own troops.
A senior Polish government source told Politico: “Poland simply does not have the additional capacity to send troops to Ukraine“, as it has to guard its borders with Kaliningrad and Belarus. “The French are far away, so they can send troops to Ukraine, and we are close, so we cannot.“
And if Trump decides to act alone, without the Europeans? Photo: Shealah Craighead/White House/IMAGO
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is also reserved. The topic of sending peacekeepers is “the wrong debate at the wrong time and on the wrong topic“, he said. Scholz does not want to participate in scenarios where “European soldiers are deployed in Ukraine without the full participation of the US“.
How should Europe finance its defense?
The second example of disunity among Europeans is related to the financing of defense measures, ARD also writes. Increasing defense spending costs billions. How could EU countries, which are already at the edge of their financial capabilities and beyond, provide for them? There are several different options here. Existing instruments in the Stability and Growth Pact could be used if EU countries want to pour additional defense funds that exceed 2% of their GDP. This opinion was expressed by German Chancellor Scholz.
However, countries such as Italy, Spain and Belgium have not yet reached this two percent limit. At the Paris meeting, it seemed that a number of countries were still reluctant to make a public decision on the issue, ARD reported. There is another option that has been discussed for a long time - this is the idea of assuming joint EU debts, but it has also long been opposed by some countries - and Germany is not alone.
A European army was first discussed in the 1950s, and since then interest in it has waxed and waned, without any real progress, comments Jamie Dettmer in “Politico“. And now that Europe is short of funds, it will have to make a difficult choice between social spending and defense spending - a debate that will inevitably lead to further turmoil in domestic politics and add to the list of grievances that leftists feel towards their political leaders.
The battle for Europe has already begun
The European Union's tradition of seeking compromise in decision-making is good, but it often happens too slowly, comment Christian Feld and Tina Hassel. In this situation, delay cannot be tolerated. At the Munich Security Conference, there was talk on the sidelines that the EU now needs to act quickly, strategically and confidently. Donald Trump is playing "real-time chess". There is no time for long-term counter-strategies. Observers who know the US president closely emphasize: Europeans will also have to think about who will convey Trump's messages, who can reach him. Suitable candidates include Giorgia Meloni and Mark Rutte.
And what if Trump insists on acting alone? US special envoy Keith Kellogg was at NATO headquarters in Brussels on Monday evening. After his talks there, he said that the US would not impose a unilateral decision on the attacked country. “The Ukrainians' decision is a Ukrainian decision“. At first glance, it sounds good, but will the Europeans in NATO want and be able to independently support Ukraine in the war if necessary: “for as long as necessary, as they have always said“, the ARD correspondents ask.
At the same time, Europe must also decide on its own future, writes Jamie Detmer. Because at the Munich conference it became clear that the United States expects the Old Continent to comply politically and economically with the expectations of the new White House administration. The EU must choose between becoming a satrap of the United States or freeing itself from its dependence and determining its own course. But it must decide quickly, because the battle for Europe has already begun, Detmer adds.