European leaders including President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen observed the third anniversary of the outbreak of the war in Ukraine in Kyiv on 24 February in a year when the outlook for the future of Ukraine as well as when and how the war will end seem uncertain.
The main reason for this uncertainty is probably the change in the US strategy towards the war after the election of US President Donald Trump to a second term in office. As I wrote in Al-Ahram Weekly last week, his administration is determined to bring the war in Ukraine to an end, and the terms for peace that Trump has been talking about are still not defined in precise terms, leaving the Ukrainian government and the Europeans almost in the dark as to the true intentions of the US administration.
This situation has led to a certain confusion regarding the way forward as far as Europe is concerned. Will it go along with the new US strategy in exploring peace prospects in Ukraine, or will it favour a different approach altogether? Apparently, Europe is divided on the terms needed to end the war and bring about peace between Ukraine and Russia and towards the important question of how and when to resume contacts with the Russian government.
Judging from the belligerent tone adopted by Von der Leyen in Kyiv last Monday, in a speech in which she stressed the necessity of increasing military assistance to Ukraine, it seems that the initial European positions related to Ukraine, namely escalating the military conflict and tightening economic and financial sanctions against Russia until Moscow surrenders, have not been reconsidered in the light of the significant change in US strategy as far as Russia and the war in Ukraine are concerned.
Moreover, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is trying to pit the Americans against the Europeans while at the same time talking to the Trump administration about an agreement to provide the Americans with sizable quantities of its reserves of rare earth minerals in exchange for security guarantees to deter Russia from attacking Ukraine in the future once the current war ends and the belligerents sign a peace agreement guaranteeing security for both Russia and Ukraine and preserving the latter’s independence and sovereignty.
Peace talks in the war in Ukraine will necessitate a common US-European approach that enjoys acceptance on the part of the Ukrainian government, and it is legitimate to raise the important question of whether the current Ukrainian president is ready to make the necessary concessions in order to end the war.
On 23 February, Zelensky said that he would be willing to relinquish his post as Ukrainian president if his country was allowed to join NATO. While he may be serious about this offer, I doubt if his backers and supporters in the Atlantic Alliance will take him seriously. Perhaps at another moment down the line another Ukrainian leader will be in a better position to negotiate an honourable peace agreement with Russia and one that will stand the test of time.
In order to achieve this, the Europeans should come up with a peace plan coordinated with the Trump administration. French President Emmanuel Macron met Trump on Monday in Washington, before which he explained, in his typically condescending fashion, that what he would be trying to get out of his talks at the White House would be an opportunity to tell the US president “not to be weak before [Putin].”
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is expected to visit Washington on 27 February to discuss British and European participation in a future peacekeeping force in Ukraine in the context of a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine.
Ukraine has estimated that such a force could not be less than 100,000 soldiers. European sources think this number is exaggerated and that the European force would not exceed 30,000. Starmer stressed that the deployment of such a force should be backed by US resources and security guarantees.
On 21 February, Trump told Fox News TV host Brian Kilmeade that he was “tired” of hearing that Russia was to blame for the war in Ukraine and laid the blame for its outbreak on former US president Joe Biden and Zelensky. He said that both leaders had said the “wrong things.”
In an attempt to appease Trump, Zelensky said last Friday that his negotiating team was working with their US counterparts on an “agreement that can strengthen [US-Ukrainian relations],” but that there was still a need “to work out the details to ensure its effectiveness”.
In order to achieve peace in Ukraine, the European countries should work with the Trump administration on the conditions necessary for a lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine, one based on security for both countries and without inserting NATO into the equation. The existing gaps between the US and European positions should be bridged so that no third party can use them to render any peace overtures dead on arrival.
The results of the German parliamentary elections on 23 February could make this goal difficult to reach, at least for the next few months. Christian Democrat Union (CDU) leader Friedrich Merz will be the next German chancellor after his party and the Christian Social Union (CSU), its sister party, received 28.5 per cent of the vote. The Alternative for Germany (AfD), an anti-immigrant party, came second with 20 per cent.
After the results were announced, Merz said that his priority was to achieve “independence from the United States step by step.” He added that it is not certain what the future holds for the Atlantic Alliance.
I am not sure that these declarations will be welcomed in Europe or that they will facilitate the elaboration of a common European position as far as cooperating with the US in ending the war in Ukraine is concerned.
The writer is former assistant foreign minister.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 27 February, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: