The UK and European Union governments face two interlinked dilemmas in their approach to the Ukraine peace process initiated by the Trump administration. It is not clear from the conclusions of Sunday’s London summit whether they will be able to navigate these dilemmas, or even fully recognise them.
The first dilemma is how to strengthen Ukraine’s position in peace negotiations without simultaneously emboldening Ukraine to reject a US-Russia deal. Such a move might provoke Trump into abandoning Ukraine and handing all responsibility for Ukraine over to the Europeans — who cannot in fact meet this responsibility.
The second UK and EU dilemma is how to make themselves look important and “relevant” (something that the European elites see as vital, though it is not incumbent on the rest of us to do so) without making promises they have no intention of actually fulfilling.
Keir Starmer said on Sunday that he, Macron and Zelensky worked out a peace plan which they would present to Trump. He did not give details of this plan, but announced that the summit had agreed on the following four points: to keep military aid flowing into Ukraine; to have Kyiv at the table for any peace talks; for European leaders to aim to deter any future Russian invasion of Ukraine; and to form a “coalition of the willing” to defend Ukraine and guarantee peace there in future.
Starmer said that Europe would have to “do the heavy lifting” in a peace deal, but also that the British and EU plan is intended to “ensure that we stay in lockstep with the US”. He denied any split over Ukraine between the US and Europe, and said: “let me be clear — we agree with Trump on the urgent need for a durable peace. Now we need to deliver together”.
However diplomatically necessary, this statement is on the face of it utterly absurd given what happened between Trump and Zelensky on Friday, and the European condemnations of Trump and his approach to peace that followed. There is in fact no evidence whatsoever that Trump wants any help from Britain and Europe in making peace. On the contrary, as he said during Friday’s clash in the White House, he is absolutely convinced that he is the only person capable of making a deal with Putin — and he may be right.
As for Ukraine, Starmer’s promise for continued military aid is essential if Moscow is to be convinced that Ukraine can continue to resist. However, nobody in Britain or Europe should deceive themselves into thinking they can successfully continue on their own for very long if Washington pulls the plug.
But another promise made in London is simply a repetition of an old and infamous lie that has done terrible damage to Ukraine and may do more in future: Starmer’s statement of an intention to form a “coalition of the willing” to “defend Ukraine”, and pledge to send British troops as part of a “peacekeeping force”. Even before Trump, the Biden administration and every leading Nato government had repeatedly declared they would not go to war with Russia to defend Ukraine. This always rendered the idea of Ukrainian Nato membership utterly empty.
Fortunately for the British and Europeans, Russia’s repeated rejection of European “peacekeepers” as part of any settlement means they are very unlikely to be asked to fulfil this promise. If, though, Ukraine continues to insist on it, and Trump loses his temper and walks away from the peace process and support for Ukraine, then Ukrainians may pay a terrible price for European theatrical posturing.
Anatol Lieven is a former war correspondent and Director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in Washington DC.