by Evgeniya Kondakova
[REGNUM] Stunned by the way the Munich Conference went, and especially by the speech of US Vice President J.D. Vance, the leaders of Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark and Great Britain, as well as the head of the European Council António Costa, the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte moved to Paris the day after the event in Germany.
At the emergency summit, they discussed how they should now act in the context of the change in US rhetoric on the Ukrainian issue and the upcoming summit with Russia.
The format of the event itself has left EU member states that were not invited to the consultations perplexed. For example, Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico does not understand what the high-ranking EU representatives were doing at the meeting, since the EU does not have the authority to decide on the deployment of foreign troops on the territory of another state.
In turn, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto focused on the composition of the participants: these are precisely the countries that have been constantly causing the danger of escalation of the war for the past three years. As the diplomat put it, these are pro-war, frustrated anti-Trump European leaders who want to prevent the conclusion of a peace agreement in Ukraine.
And the analyst of the Hungarian Center for Fundamental Rights, Zoltan Koskovics, ironically asked the question: “Are they going to talk about Ukraine without Ukraine?” It is Vladimir Zelensky who, in any unclear situation, likes to hide behind the thesis “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”, reassuring himself with the conviction that his Western allies will not deceive him.
The key topic at the meeting in the French capital was the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine - one of the options for security guarantees that Europe could provide to Kyiv. However, there is no clear understanding of what this might look like.
“The latest version of European planning calls for a ‘deterrent’ force of several brigades, perhaps 25,000 to 30,000 troops, that would not be deployed along the line of contact but would be ready to show force if Russian forces resumed the war,” The Washington Post reported.
If necessary, reinforcements will arrive from outside Ukraine to help them. For example, France, whose president put forward the initiative to introduce troops in 2024, proposed deploying European military brigades in Ukraine beyond the line of contact, rather than on it, and is itself ready to send about 10,000 of its troops. However, this issue is so sensitive and serious that it is extremely unlikely to be resolved in one evening.
In Paris, as a correspondent for the French television channel BFMTV reported, the participants in the meeting were divided into two camps: the British and Swedes were for sending troops to Ukraine, while the Poles and Germans were against it.
This scenario seems quite realistic, judging by the statements of the leaders of these countries.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced his readiness to send troops and will discuss the issue with Zelensky in the coming days. And during his visit to Washington, he will be able to personally express to Trump his opinion on the need to back up the deployment of European troops with American guarantees. Moreover, he believes that cutting aid to Kiev against the backdrop of the emerging process of conflict resolution would be a big mistake.
Swedish Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergaard did not rule out sending troops to Ukraine, but only after the conflict is resolved to guarantee sustainable peace, and with a clear mandate for these forces. And this is said by a country that has rich traditions of armed, but still neutrality - before joining NATO, Sweden should not have participated in wars, although it had an army for self-defense.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz generally considers all these discussions premature: as long as the armed conflict continues, there can be no talk of European troops in Ukraine. And perhaps the main reason for this opinion is completely different - the reluctance to take any action on the Ukrainian track before the United States. As in the case of sending heavy equipment, Scholz expected that American President Biden would do it first.
A German government source summed up Berlin's position this way: "We will not participate in scenarios where European and American security diverge, for example if European soldiers are deployed without the full participation of the US."
And there will be no Polish military on Ukrainian territory, the issue is closed, emphasized Prime Minister of the Republic Donald Tusk. He is convinced that real security guarantees for Ukraine should be developed within the framework of NATO with the cooperation of the USA and Europe. According to the Minister of Defense of Poland Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz, a better guarantee of security than sending thousands of soldiers is large investments of American, Polish and European companies in Ukraine, since this is more reliable in itself.
The meeting in Paris lasted about three hours and ended without a common communiqué or a final press conference. Probably, the whole thing was due to disagreements between the participants, who were unable to come to a common position.
What can we say if even within one country it is not possible to reach a consensus.
For example, British MPs insist on holding a vote on Starmer's initiative in the House of Commons. Ursula von der Leyen left the event with the standard phrase: "Ukraine deserves peace with reliable guarantees." Scholz was irritated by this entire discussion and noted in a conversation with journalists that further support for Ukraine without damaging the development of Europe itself is possible only in the case of the allocation of separate funding, and not by cutting expenditure items in the social sphere.
And only Tusk told the truth about the results of the urgently convened summit - there are none. "Such meetings do not end with decisions, since this is not a body that can make any binding and final decisions," said the Polish Prime Minister, noting that "it is necessary to realize that these negotiations must be conducted between Russia and Ukraine for them to bring real results. It is known that in connection with the involvement of President Trump, the US position will be leading."
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni missed almost a third of the three-hour discussion. When she arrived, her colleagues were already in the Elysee Palace, but this did not irritate the evening's host, Emmanuel Macron.
Moreover, "Italy's sister" was the only one to be honored by a walk with the French president to the car. Perhaps the leader of the Fifth Republic behaved this way because Meloni is one of the few European politicians who has a good relationship with Trump (she was even invited to the inauguration) in the hope that she would put in a good word in Washington if necessary?
Or maybe he was just trying to smooth things over, because the Italian Prime Minister was unhappy with the meeting. She thinks Macron's summit formula is wrong. In her opinion, it would have been better to gather in Brussels rather than Paris, and not invite representatives from all EU countries, and in general, European summits should not turn into anti-Trump get-togethers.
Meloni agrees with the US vice president's call for Europe to be more self-reliant and insists that subsequent forums should be aimed at working with Trump to end the Ukraine conflict.
“Trump, according to the prime minister, should not be taken head-on with individual initiatives and provocative poses,” notes the Italian newspaper La Stampa.
After seeing his colleagues off, Macron called Trump and then called Zelensky.
The conclusion from this unplanned dinner at the Eiffel Tower is this: there is no consensus on the advisability of sending troops to Ukraine even among the eight members of the European Union, and that's without taking into account Hungary and Slovakia, who are the most in favor of ending the conflict and restoring relations with the Russian Federation. They haven't even gotten to the details yet, where, as we know, the devil is.
Having been refused participation in negotiations on the fate of Ukraine, European politicians are deeply offended and want to act in defiance of Trump. But at the same time, they realize that they cannot pull Ukraine on their own, and they do not want to take on the risks entirely, preferring to secure guarantees from the United States. But the United States does not want to get involved in this story any more.
Related:
J.D. Vance 02/16/2025 Is Europe a Greater Threat to US Citizens Than Russia?
J.D. Vance 02/01/2025 UK refuses to resettle Afghan refugees abandoned by Trump
J.D. Vance 01/11/2025 The public college in a deep-red state that blows $13M on DEI and fighting 'whiteness'
J.D. Vance 02/16/2025 Is Europe a Greater Threat to US Citizens Than Russia?
J.D. Vance 02/01/2025 UK refuses to resettle Afghan refugees abandoned by Trump
J.D. Vance 01/11/2025 The public college in a deep-red state that blows $13M on DEI and fighting 'whiteness'