European capitals are scrambling to boost their influence in Washington, even as Moscow clings to the hope that it can turn Donald Trump’s weaknesses to its own advantage.
“The biggest news is that there is no new news,” a French colleague quipped at the end of yet another off-the-record briefing on talks over Ukraine. Paris, London and Berlin are, in reality, working hard to secure the status of Washington’s privileged partners in these negotiations — whether together or separately, depending on circumstances. So far, though, the results have been underwhelming. The reason is simple: diplomacy carries limited weight when set against brute force.
It is hardly surprising, then, that Emmanuel Macron has been so insistent in urging Europeans to rearm. “To be free in this world, you have to inspire fear. And to inspire fear, you have to be powerful,” he said ahead of France’s national day in July this year. Not everyone appears to be listening. Some still hope to shelter behind Ukraine to avoid war reaching their own territory. Others, in a display of political infantilism, deny the Russian threat altogether and nurture the illusion that Putin would never dare attack NATO members. And some, before Trump’s return to power, simply assumed that everything would somehow work itself out. That illusion has now been shattered. The US president has left no space for the wait-and-see crowd or for fatalists — so relentless is his pursuit of a Nobel prize.
So what is left? For Europeans, it is the same war of words in the hope of gaining leverage over Trump, guided by the belief that “as long as there is hope, it lives”. For Moscow, it is the same bluff and the same dogged effort to exploit Trump’s vanity for its own ends. For Ukraine, the priority is not to be fooled again, as it was during the signing of the Budapest Memorandum. At a moment when Ukraine is holding the front with dignity and has no intention of ceasing to exist simply so that Trump can acquire a new bauble, there is little reason to expect swift or radical change. Russia still has the means to wage war, and as long as that remains true, it will not agree to any “stable, lasting peace” — except on paper. And who, in their right mind, would take Moscow at its word?
The most pressing issue for Ukraine — real security guarantees, with a clear mechanism for military support in the event of renewed Russian aggression — is addressed with extreme caution by French diplomacy. Part of this stems from the classified nature of the talks, and part from lingering doubts about whether the United States would genuinely step in for Ukraine if Russia were to resume armed aggression. There are no concrete figures, no clearly spelt-out guarantees.
What, then, stops Trump from being “tough and demanding” with the Kremlin today? Over the past decade, Russia has committed so many war crimes that there is no shortage of grounds for pressure. Yet Trump has opted for a very different tone in his dealings with Putin. He clearly has his own reasons — and they are unlikely to shift overnight.
What can change, slowly and incrementally, is the balance of power. If Russia is worn down and defeated, and Ukraine, together with its European partners, grows significantly stronger, only then will it be possible to talk about peace — from a position of strength. For now, the most realistic option is simply to buy time. The much-discussed 20-point plan may yet vanish from the negotiating table as quickly as the 28-point plan did before it. “President Macron believes that Europeans should not merely delegate to the Americans the right to negotiate with the Russians, but should themselves determine their own future,” the Élysée Palace stresses.
The French president’s diplomatic service insists that Emmanuel Macron currently has “no plans to meet the Russian president”, nor are there any arrangements for a phone call. “Things first need to stabilise,” Paris says — and it is hard to argue with that. The real question is how exactly one is meant to “stabilise” Putin, who has no intention of ending his war of conquest, or Trump, for whom personal whims seem to matter more than the reputation of the United States or the fate of democracy itself.
A new meeting of the so-called “coalition of the willing” is scheduled for January. Will it help its participants better consolidate their forces and finally begin to act decisively? It is probably wiser not to indulge in predictions. Global politics today depends too heavily on an unpredictable American leader, leaving wide room for manoeuvre for Russian aggressors. In the end, all these talks of a “stable and lasting peace in Ukraine” are, to a large extent, little more than ritual dances designed to flatter the ego of a would-be Nobel laureate. Meanwhile, Europeans are slowly coming to realise that they and Ukraine are in the same boat — one you cannot simply jump out of while it is still moving. They will have to make it through together, or risk disappearing politically. Together.
