FACED WITH a faltering transatlantic alliance, bewildered European leaders commenced a diplomatic initiative this week to reclaim what remains of it and to persuade Donald Trump to reconsider his stance on Ukraine. On February 24th, Emmanuel Macron, the French president, hurried to Washington just three days before Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister of Britain, was scheduled for his own visit. Mr. Macron engaged in a three-hour discussion with the American president, claiming afterwards that their talks had led to “substantive steps” forward.
The two leaders’ perspectives were nearly opposite. Mr. Macron, along with other European leaders, views Ukraine’s security amid Russian expansionism as crucial. “Peace,” the French president declared while standing with his American counterpart, “must not imply a capitulation of Ukraine.” In stark contrast, Mr. Trump has referred to Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as a “dictator” and last week organized direct discussions with the Russians that excluded Mr. Zelensky and his European allies. Notably, while with Mr. Macron, Mr. Trump deliberately refrained from labeling Vladimir Putin a dictator, stating, “I don’t use those words lightly.”
Mr. Macron appeared cautiously optimistic following his visit to the White House. One factor contributing to this optimism is that, according to him, Mr. Trump agreed to provide some form of American “backing” for any potential future deployment of European forces to help maintain peace in Ukraine. The specifics of this backing remained vague. However, Mr. Macron went so far as to call it a “turning point,” and Mr. Trump did not refute this assertion.
For several weeks, France and Britain have been exploring methods to establish a coalition of European and allied peacekeeping forces that could be deployed in the event of a peace agreement acceptable to Ukraine. This initiative would be part of a broader European security guarantee against future Russian aggression but would require credible American military and intelligence support to be effective. This is potentially an avenue Mr. Trump may consider, especially if linked to the critical minerals deal he aims to negotiate with Ukraine.
Additionally, Mr. Trump has now suggested that Mr. Putin, despite his public statements, would not oppose the presence of European peacekeepers in Ukraine. “He will accept that. I’ve asked him that question,” the American president remarked prior to his meeting with Mr. Macron. The French president emphasized that any European troops would not be deployed to the front lines or engage in combat directly. Nevertheless, such a force would be essential for providing “reassurance” to Ukraine and ensuring that “peace is upheld.” It would also represent Europe’s commitment to increasing its defense spending.
It remains uncertain whether the slight progress Mr. Macron believes he has made will yield significant outcomes. The weight of Mr. Trump’s promises is unclear. The American president exercised a degree of restraint during his press conference with Mr. Macron, showering compliments on his French counterpart; Mr. Macron was careful to express gratitude to and flatter his host. Yet, on the same day, to the dismay of its allies, the United States voted alongside Russia against a UN resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
As Europeans scramble to react to the disruption of their post-war security framework, they now appear to be acknowledging the severity of the situation. Previously inclined toward unilateral diplomacy, Mr. Macron conversed with 30 European and allied leaders before his Washington visit and has been collaborating closely with Britain on security strategies. “Even if the notion of American support for a European peacekeeping force is somewhat implicit,” states Mujtaba Rahman, managing director for Europe at Eurasia Group, a risk consultancy, “Macron has managed to move the discussion forward in quite a constructive manner.” Mr. Starmer’s impending visit will serve as the next assessment of whether there’s more substance to this than mere dialogue. ■
