Ukraine summit in Paris exposes divisions, lack of coherent plan, experts say
The emergency Ukraine summit held in Paris by European leaders on Feb. 17 exposed divisions between European countries, highlighting how they have so far failed to agree on a coherent plan for supporting Kyiv, analysts have told the Kyiv Independent.
French President Emmanuel Macron convened the summit after Brussels and Kyiv were sidelined from negotiations in Saudi Arabia on ending Russia's war in Ukraine, as concerns mount that both Europe and Kyiv may be left without U.S. support.
Adding to tensions on the continent, U.S. Vice President JD Vance stunned those watching on Feb. 14 when his speech at the Munich Security Conference turned into a searing attack on Europe's ideals and a call to embrace far-right political parties.
"This is the EU's final call to show leadership," Federica Mangiameli, defense and security senior programme manager at Globsec, told the Kyiv Independent.
"It is time to honour the promises the EU has made, for Ukraine, for Europe and for all of us believing in a democratic free world."
The Paris summit was attended by leaders of Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, and Denmark.
The participants considered increasing defense spending, providing security guarantees to Kyiv, and sending peacekeeping troops to Ukraine.
Speaking after the summit, Macron reaffirmed the need for strong security guarantees for Ukraine, warning that a ceasefire without them risks collapsing like the failed Minsk agreements.
"Europeans must invest better, more, and together in their security and defense — both for today and for the future," he said in his statement on X.
Yet there were no concrete agreements, and little consensus among statements issued by others in attendance.
U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that he is "prepared to consider committing British forces on the ground, alongside others, if there is a lasting peace agreement."
But German Chancellor Olaf Scholz argued that it was "highly inappropriate" to discuss sending peacekeepers before a specific peace plan is approved.
Here's what five European experts think about the results of the Paris summit and what Europe should do next to support Ukraine:Looking at the outcome of the Paris meeting, it is still clear that Europeans do not agree on how, and to what degree to support Ukraine, particularly if they need to defy the United States to do so. This extends to issues beyond just the headline question of deploying European troops to Ukraine and extends to issues such as security guarantees, the level and kind of military assistance, reconstruction aid, and even the definition of victory.
Unless and until they reach such agreement, Europeans will not have much if any say in the negotiations. Whether they feel they need that and whether they are willing to put in more resources and make compromises with their EU partners is, I guess, a question they need to ask themselves.
Read also: A ceasefire in Ukraine could end martial law — what would lifting restrictions mean?We Europeans still have difficulties accepting that — at least for now and for this presidency — the United States is no longer a reliable ally, and is possibly even an opponent.
Regime change has happened in Washington, however, and the informal summit in Paris tried to come to terms with the implications — that Europe will have to do a lot more to support Ukraine.
The emphasis here is on "do," rather than just "say" things that help Ukraine. Europe's problem is that it will find that difficult even if it wants to support Ukraine, beyond providing money — too many countries in Europe have neglected their defenses and their defense industries for too long.My sense is that European leaders are converging on a set of financial measures to mobilize additional money for defense. The goal is to allow European states to boost defense spending to build up their own armed forces and sustain military aid to Ukraine as US support for both Ukraine and European security more broadly is perceived to be crumbling.
Two big questions remained unanswered in Paris on Monday. One, will Europeans deploy troops to Ukraine, under which conditions, and with what mandate?
And two, what is the right balance to strike between favoring the European defense industry to assert greater sovereignty from the U.S., and procuring equipment from the U.S. to keep the Trump administration engaged in European security affairs?
We'll probably learn more next week after Germany's Feb. 23 federal election. It seems that the democratic parties of the political center have agreed on the contours of a plan to reform Germany's debt break to boost defense spending sooner rather than later and to expand Germany's role as a key security provider in Europe.
But they're keeping their cards close to their chest to not add fuel to the populist fire being stirred by the far-right and far-left parties, both of which are decidedly pro-Russian.The meeting was a clear political reaction to the Munich Security Conference that brought some bad news for the EU and Ukraine, and demanded a political follow-up at the highest level.
Only some of the EU countries were invited, especially those that are prominent and powerful enough as well as capable of delivering financial support and dedication to Ukraine.
But the results are mixed, exposing the existing divisions among the EU countries and states that want to join the peace-keeping efforts in Ukraine, and those that remain rather lukewarm on this. At the same time, the wide consensus was on more military spending and investments as well as maintaining political unity and a strong Transatlantic bond.
At the same time, it is clear that Europe needs both more time and vigilance to respond to the ongoing challenges, and to stand up to the challenges from Russia and more pressure from the United States too.
This is both the case when speaking to the general public in the EU as well as when securing additional financial support, investments, and more projects and military capabilities.Yes, Europe certainly still needs to do much more. My expectation from the meeting on Monday would have been that the participants agree to come up with a draft plan within the next week or two of how European countries can provide security guarantees for Ukraine.
Since it is unrealistic to do this without some form of U.S. support, the plan should indicate where this support is essential, i.e. what would be the minimal amount of support needed from the U.S. for the plan to succeed. It should also detail what the Europeans are able to provide.
This needs to be a realistic assessment but also one which "hurts," i.e. where the European countries leave their comfort zone and pledge to provide the maximum possible support. Even if this requires them to take actions which will negatively affect their own security, they need to do it, because their security is being protected in Ukraine, and if they fail to help protect it there then they will have to sacrifice much more in order to defend it on their own territory or that of allied NATO countries.
Even if (U.S. President) Donald Trump is unpredictable, his statements recently and during his first administration leave no doubt that he expects Europe to do more for its own security. So relying on some sort of vague hope that he might change his mind and continue to provide the same amount of support for European security as has previously been the case is naive and dangerous.
Unfortunately we did not see any sort of plan, or indication of a forthcoming plan, coming out of the meeting in Paris. European leaders need to realize that in order to have a seat at tables they consider relevant for them in the future, they will need to back up their rhetoric with much more convincing action, and they will need to begin immediately.
defense and security senior programme manager at Globsec
The interesting decision not to invite all EU leaders was poorly received by the rest of the bloc, once again providing figures like (Hungarian Prime Minister) Viktor Orban and (Slovakian Prime Minister) Robert Fico with an opportunity to push narratives of conflicting interests and divisions among EU member states.
The real danger here is that public perception may shift toward believing in a division within the EU — between "warmongers" and "peace supporters."
At this stage, rather than wake up calls, we should talk about "final call" for the EU to prove its voice matters and support Ukraine in the negotiation talks. Years of effort to back Ukraine's fight for survival would be wasted if a poor deal is reached — affecting the credibility of the EU project for years to come.
This is the EU's final call to show leadership. It is up to (EU Chief) Ursula von der Leyen to engage with the U.S. and ensure that any agreement reached serves Ukraine's best interests — rather than merely ticking an item off a diplomatic to — do list.
It is time to honour the promises the EU has made, for Ukraine, for Europe and for all of us believing in a democratic free world.
Read also: As Trump's Ukraine envoy is partially sidelined, Middle East negotiator takes lead in Russia talks
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
23 minutes ago
- New York Post
Iran rulers' playing for time is one big reason Trump shouldn't give them any
Hmm: Hours after the world learned that President Donald Trump would take 'up to two weeks' to decide whether to send in US warplanes to drop bunker-busters on Fordow, Tehran's last main nuclear site, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi vomited up some fresh bluster. That makes it obvious the regime intends to just string this out for as long as possible, hoping that Europe and/or Congress will somehow get Trump to tell Israel to stop its campaign. Which means the president needs to pay even more heed to the risks of holding off on a decisive intervention. That includes not just the possible loss of public support that's built over the last week, but the chance that some unforeseen development will raise the stakes beyond a straightforward strike on a single nuke site. To be clear, Trump can still hope for a negotiated end to Iran's nuclear program, but Araqchi's ploy reeks of the same bogus game that Hamas has been playing ever since the end of the Gaza ceasefire the prez imposed as he was taking office. A game the Iranian was plainly pushing as he met Friday in Geneva with a passel of European diplos trying to 'de-escalate' the conflict. Meanwhile, some in Congress are maneuvering to tie Trump's hands, insisting he shouldn't act without votes in the House and Sente explicitly authorizing any strikes — a precedent that would likely permanently limit not just this president, but all future holders of the Oval Office. For what it's worth, Trump plainly isn't holding off only because the ayatollah might see reason: He's also considering the full impact of a US strike, and seeing what else may develop. For example: Maybe Israel can take out Fordow without our help, whether with repeated waves of smaller bombs or (conceivably) the most ambitious commando raid ever. He's reportedly also worried about Iran descending into total chaos, as Libya did after President Barack Obama arrogantly decided he could show the world how 'regime change' should be done. Yet that raises another angle that argues against Trump taking his time: Israel's ongoing total humiliation of the Islamic Republic's rulers (and its killing of many of them) could trigger a Libya-style 'regime collapse' even without a Fordow takeout. So a fast elimination of all Tehran's nuclear assets, allowing Israel to stand down, is arguably the best hope for the region to stabilize. Khamenei and his advisers care only about protecting their own power, so they'll use every hour Trump gives them searching for some way out of the trap they put themselves in by ignoring Trump's last deadline. Trump has to look at the bigger picture, including the risks (seen and unseen) of letting Tehran keep playing games.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
US stocks end mostly lower as investors weigh Trump's Iran plan, Fed rate cut possibility
U.S. stocks closed mostly lower as investors waited to see if President Donald Trump will attack Iran or hammer out a nuclear deal with the country. Trump will decide within two weeks on striking Iran, according to White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt. He's open to talks, but Iran has said it won't negotiate with the U.S. unless Israel stops attacking. The only way to end the imposed war is to 'unconditionally stop' the enemy's aggression, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Friday in a post on X. European leaders from UK, France and Germany are talking with Iranian leaders and reportedly will encourage discussions with the U.S. Still, senior U.S. officials have been preparing for the possibility of a strike on Iran, with some pointing to potential plans for a weekend strike, according to Bloomberg, citing people familiar with the matter. Stocks got an early boost from Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller who said in a CNBC interview he doesn't expect tariffs to boost inflation significantly so policymakers should be looking to lower interest rates as early as next month. Lower rates are seen as a boost for stocks because they encourage borrowing and investing by cutting the cost of financing. 'That would be my view, whether the committee would go along with it or not,' Waller said. His tone was different from Fed Chair Jerome Powell's comments earlier this week that the Fed was in no hurry to move rates. Instead, the central bank would wait to see effects of Trump's tariffs on inflation, the economy and jobs. The blue-chip Dow index closed up 0.08%, or 35.16 points, to 42,206.82; the broad S&P 500 dipped 0.22%, or 13.03 points, to 5,967.84, below the key psycholgical 6,000 level and its third straight loss; and the tech-heavy Nasdaq fell 0.51%, or 98.86 points, to 19,447.41. Oil prices dipped to $75 per barrel. The benchmark 10- year yield fell to 4.379%. In early afternoon trade, chip stocks fell after the Wall Street Journal said Jeffrey Kessler, head of the Commerce Department unit in charge of export controls, told top global semiconductor makers he wanted to revoke waivers they have used to access American technology in China. Currently, South Korea's Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing enjoy blanket waivers that allow them to ship American chip-making equipment to their factories in China without applying for a separate license each time, the story said. Analysts at Jefferies, though, said in a note "it is not very material in our view. We are talking about three fabs which are not big buyers of equipment in any three companies will simply move any production they can't do in China to their fabs in Taiwan or Korea." Trump again criticized Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell after the Federal Reserve rates remained unchanged this week. Trump labeled Powell as 'destructive' in a social media post and said Powell is costing the United States 'hundreds of billions of dollars' by leaving rates steady. Trump has been calling for rate cuts to boost the economy and drop the cost of U.S. debt financing. CarMax's results in the first three months of its fiscal year topped analysts' forecasts. Shares rose 6.59%. Darden Restaurants results in the last three months of its fiscal year beat analysts' expectations. The restaurant chain owner also issued a solid sales outlook for fiscal year 2026. Shares rose 1.36%. Accenture topped quarterly revenue estimates but its bookings fell for the second straight quarter. Shares dropped 6.86%. Microsoft plans to lay off several thousand employees in the next few weeks. Shares were marginally lower. Smith and Wesson's sales in the last three months of its fiscal year missed forecasts and profit declined from a year ago It said steel tariffs could drive up costs for the gunmaker. Shares slid 19.81%. Specialty building products company GMS is getting buyout interest from both QXO and Home Depot. QXO offered GMS $95.20 per share and the Wall Street Journal said Home Depot made a separate private offer. GMS shares jumped 23.63%. Grocery chain Kroger reported mixed quarterly results, but raised its annual same-stores sales outlook. Kroger said tariffs hadn't materially impacted the business and price increases were its last resort. Shares gained 9.84%. Hackers with possible links to Israel have drained more than $90 million from Nobitex, Iran's largest cryptocurrency exchange, according to blockchain analytics firms, media reports said. Bitcoin was last down 1.02% at $103,595.00. (This story was updated with new information.) Medora Lee is a money, markets, and personal finance reporter at USA TODAY. You can reach her at mjlee@ and subscribe to our free Daily Money newsletter for personal finance tips and business news every Monday through Friday. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: US stocks close mostly lower as investors mull Trump Iran move, Fed Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
an hour ago
Israel-Iran live updates: Trump snubs Europe talks in new comments
European leaders were meeting with Iranian diplomats in Geneva on Friday, attempting to reach a diplomatic resolution that would prevent Iran from developing its nuclear weapons program. "No one should deny the risk of Iran getting a nuclear weapon," French President Emmanuel Macron said Friday. "It's a real risk. We have never denied this."
