As the long-drawn-out conflict between Russia and Ukraine continues, Diplomacy and international relations have, of late, witnessed a perceptible shift in dynamics and change in direction. The US took the early initiative to push for a ceasefire. European leaders were found wanting, lacking a cohesive response, seemingly overwhelmed by the speed with which the US took over the peace process. For neutral observers, it would appear as a case of ‘missed opportunity’ for Europe.
AMBASSADOR SRIKUMAR MENON, IFS(RETD)
FOR NEWS ANALYTICS
a 5 mins read.
What has stood out in the past four months is the sidelining of Europe, and its waning influence and role in the peace process. Despite being an important stakeholder, with legitimate security concerns and interests that are deeply interlinked to the Ukraine conflict, Europe sadly found itself left on the margins – ignored and excluded, from the initial process of negotiations.
More so, after the assumption of office by the new Trump administration in January, as the United States positions itself into a more dominant role, proactively driving the peace narrative and negotiations for a ceasefire in the conflict. During this early phase of his peace push, Trump made no bones about depicting himself as the ‘dealmaker-in-chief’.
There has been significant friction and growing tensions between the US and Europe in their strategic approaches to the ongoing war in Ukraine.
Much to the dismay and growing concern of many Europeans, the early moves by the new US administration marked a visible shift in US policy. In February. US and Russian diplomats met in Saudi Arabia, while deciding to re-engage and seek a reset in their relationship and bilaterally negotiate on the war without Ukraine and Europe. The US also pitched for a continuation of US investments and assistance in Ukraine by seeking in return a share in the latter’s rare earth metal industry.
European concerns escalated when it appeared that the two sides could be negotiating a peace deal that would potentially allow Russia to retain some of the captured territories and block Ukraine’s entry into NATO. This notwithstanding, the fact is that the US has limited influence over EU membership decisions.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer aptly summed up European concerns when he pointed out, “At stake is not just the future of Ukraine. It is an existential question for Europe as a whole.”
President Zelenskyy of Ukraine has all along expressed his frustration and concerns at being excluded from the peace parleys, pointing out that Ukraine’s right to self-determination was being completely disregarded. Russian President Putin has been seeking an end to the war on Russia’s terms, while seizing the opportunity to redraw the map of Europe to Russia’s advantage.
Since the early days of the conflict, when it all began in February 2022, there have been sharp differences among EU member states on the strategy and approach to stop hostilities. Being unable to take the lead and play a pre-eminent, unified, coherent and meaningful role in diplomatic negotiations, Europe has gradually and effectively ceded that mantle to the US.
This dilution and drift in European authority is due to a lack of strategic focus and disunity among members of the Union – a situation that is symptomatic of the EU’s hesitancy to take decisive action. As it is, the EU has been bogged down by its collective inability to project a clear, viable and mutually consensual plan for ending the war in Ukraine.
While the US has always desired a robust role for itself in geopolitical matters, the tardy and seemingly limp response from Europe in the early days of the push by the new Trump administration, only reinforced the US resolve to go it alone, and pitch its diplomatic might in a more assertive manner, behind the Ukraine-Russia negotiations to secure an early resolution of the conflict.
On the other hand, the European tendency to prioritise domestic issues and conflicting national interests among member states has only complicated the scene, preventing any collective action.
European leaders have been complicit in their inability to forge a consensus in formulating a European role in post-war Ukraine, besides failing to present a unified stand on troop deployments, defence spending and contributions. Such divergent views are exemplified by stances taken by Germany and Poland opposing troop deployments (advocated by the UK, Sweden, and Denmark).
The UK hosted a summit in London to reinforce European backing for Ukraine in the war against Russia. The subsequent emergency summit in Paris drew criticism over the exclusion of Hungary and the three Baltic states from the consultations. The summit failed as it could not reach a consensus on European involvement.
CONSEQUENCES FOR EUROPE
Amidst the growing perception of its inability to secure its strategic interests, Europe faces a further erosion of its relevance, influence and diplomatic leverage in the global and geopolitical sphere. There is also the possibility of Europe becoming increasingly dependent on US support to secure its military, security, diplomatic and economic needs. It may well be a revert, in some form, to the days of the Marshall Plan of the late 1940s and 1950s, when US aid provided much-needed capital and materials to support European allies to rebuild the continent’s economy in the aftermath of destruction caused by WW-II.
The sidelining of Europe in the Ukraine negotiations also has implications for Ukraine itself, having banked on European support for securing membership of the EU and NATO.
US CRITICISM OF EUROPE
The US has urged Europe to take more financial responsibility in supporting Ukraine. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth termed current funding arrangements as ‘imbalanced’, while US Vice President JD Vance called on Europe to give an ‘overwhelming’ share of funds to Ukraine.
Vance criticized EU leaders for what he called ‘backsliding on democracy and freedom of speech’, and for prioritising internal threats over external threats from Russia or China.
Around the same time, Elon Musk criticized European politics, leaders and the European Commission, while choosing to openly support far-right parties, just weeks before the German federal elections. Musk also publicly made personal accusations against the British Prime Minister, claims that many found misleading and inflammatory. Musk has courted controversy in his unconventional role as an unelected member of the Trump administration, and continues to be a diplomatic dilemma (though not a liability for President Trump, yet)
These, and a series of other US statements raked up controversy and unrest among European politicians, even prompting German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to say – ‘…that is why we will not accept outsiders interfering in our democracy, our elections, and in the democratic formation of opinions…that is not appropriate – especially among friends and allies, and we firmly reject this.”
As if Europe’s cup of woes was not full enough, the controversial Greenland issue has soured its relations with the US. European leaders have reacted sharply to the US’s plan to buy Greenland, expressing concerns about its implications for European security and sovereignty. Both Denmark and Greenland have opposed the move, warning that the use of military force would be tantamount to an attack on a NATO ally.
SEEKING THE ENDGAME
Negotiations to end the Ukraine-Russia war are still at a critical juncture, holding significant challenges for geopolitics and diplomacy. The prospects for a peace deal are indeed complex and uncertain.
A continuation of the conflict and a reduced European role in the peace process will only delay and undermine Ukraine’s efforts to salvage what it can after 3 years of bloody war. It could also contribute to a more emboldened Russian role in Ukrainian affairs, which will be a serious blow to Ukraine’s sovereignty and stability, especially given Russia’s stated aim to secure territorial gains and regime change in Kiev. Moreover, it could result in Europe losing an important source of partners for its critical mineral trade.
A reversal of Trump’s previous friendly stance toward Putin cannot be ruled out, given the US’s growing frustration with Russia following the latter’s recent military actions, including the drone strike on the Ukrainian Port city of Odesa, and Russian resistance to a ceasefire and peace deal. These developments have provoked Trump to threaten to impose secondary tariffs on Russian oil and other products.
Without a strong representation of its respective concerns and expectations, there is a risk that the outcome of negotiations could be inimical to the interests of both Ukraine and Europe.
THE WAY AHEAD
What is noteworthy and positive is that the peace parleys and exchanges have continued, despite the fiery exchanges of the first White House meeting between President Trump and President Zelensky in February. A coalition of European leaders, led by the UK and France, has proposed a three-pronged approach to ensure Ukraine’s security, but the plan’s objectives are currently out of reach.
Addressing European concerns, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently assured that Ukrainians and Europeans would eventually participate in “real” negotiations (though such formal talks are yet to start).
Europe, therefore, has its task cut out – finding itself on the crossroads, as it attempts to play a more assertive part in shaping Ukraine’s future, while also seeking to recover lost ground and restore its credibility and standing on the global stage. On the other hand, the Trump-led US is keen to prove to the world its ability to deliver on its pledge to end the Ukraine war quickly.
As hectic diplomatic moves continue, the entire world awaits with a bated sense of optimism, hoping that the willingness shown by all parties to compromise will help secure a peaceful and lasting resolution of the conflict.
(Ambassador Srikumar Menon, IFS (Retd.), former Ambassador of India to South Sudan, Angola and Sao Tome & Principe. The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The News Analytics Journal.)
Major Highlights
- Despite being deeply affected by the Ukraine conflict, Europe has been sidelined in the peace negotiations, largely overshadowed by the Trump administration.
- The US has engaged directly with Russia, sparking fears of compromised Ukrainian sovereignty and exclusion from NATO.
- Europe’s strategic drift stems from internal disagreements among EU member states, with conflicting views on post-war planning weakening its collective influence.
- US leaders have criticised Europe’s financial contributions, democratic practices and security posture, further straining transatlantic relations.
- As negotiations inch forward, there’s growing concern that without robust European involvement, any peace deal could undermine long-term European interests.
