What did Europe achieve at the Washington summit on Ukraine? – DW – 08/19/2025
The mood at the White House in Washington, DC, on Monday appeared quite different from the debacle earlier this year when US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance scolded Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in front of the cameras.
On Monday, Zelenskyy walked into the Oval Office in a crisp navy suit, not his trademark olive fatigues, and handed Trump a personal letter from his wife, Olena, to First Lady Melania Trump. The left, thanking her for raising the plight of Ukraine's abducted children with Putin, seemed to set a more diplomatic tone.
European leaders were determined to support him. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen were among those who made the trip to Washington on short notice. They sat in a protective semicircle around Zelenskyy, keen to ensure that another Oval Office humiliation was avoided and that the trans-Atlantic alliance held.
"This was a meeting where Europeans had the chance to show their unity and determination," said Almut Möller, Director of European and Global Affairs at the European Policy Centre, to DW. "Europe is not powerless."
The European leaders' clearest goal of the White House talks was Trump's public endorsement of security guarantees. The US president delivered; standing beside Zelenskyy, he pledged that the US would "coordinate" with Europe on protections for Ukraine.
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte described them as "Article 5-type guarantees," though not NATO membership itself. Article 5 is the alliance's mutual defense clause, stating that an attack on one member nation is an attack on all.
That reassurance mattered in Europe, as fear had risen that Trump might again lean towards Russia after he met President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday.
Yet the details of the security guarantees remain undefined. Trump equally pushed back on Europe's call for a ceasefire as a starting point.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
After the meeting, Rutte told Fox News, a US news broadcaster, that there are currently 30 countries in the mix in the so-called "Coalition of the Willing." Their defense ministers could meet as early as this week to begin ironing out the details of these security guarantees.
Zelenskyy was hopeful, telling reporters the guarantees will "be formalized on paper within the next week to 10 days."
In an interview with DW, researcher Tinatin Akhvlediani at the Brussels Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) evaluated these announcements of security guarantees as an essential step, "especially if the United States is engaged in backing them up."
However, she warns that this backup is essential "because, as we know, the United States currently provides the military equipment and weaponry that the EU cannot replace."
Equally important was what did not happen. During the meeting, there was no mention of Ukraine ceding territory. The reported that one European official who was part of the delegation to Washington said that Trump explained, "That is not my business, that is a matter for Ukraine," effectively ruling out forcing land swaps.
Akhvlediani maintained that the risk remains. "We will have to see what happens next, as we don't know what exactly happened behind closed doors."
As of now, Putin continues to demand Ukrainian withdrawal from parts of Donetsk and Luhansk. French President Macron openly voiced doubts about the Kremlin's intentions: "His ultimate goal is to take as much territory as possible," the French president warned.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
According to the Kremlin, Trump interrupted the talks with Zelenskyy and the European leaders to conduct a 40-minute call with Putin. The US president then moved the process forward by proposing a trilateral summit with himself, Zelenskyy and Putin, possibly within weeks.
While no date and location have been set, European leaders said they would support such a meeting if it reinforced Ukraine's sovereignty and avoided concessions imposed from outside.
Both analysts agree that such a meeting is of utmost importance. "Putin now has to show that he wants peace," Möller said.
For Europe, direct talks between Ukraine and Russia carry both opportunity and risk. It could mark the beginning of a genuine peace process or open the door to renewed pressure on Ukraine to compromise, this time without European leaders by his side.
For the European leaders in attendance, the summit went beyond its outcomes. The talks showed that Europe can be more than a bystander and is willing to go the extra mile regarding security guarantees, Möller said.
"This is about each and every European leader sitting in this room, knowing that there is a threat out there that this threat might affect their own country. This has brought them together," he said.
German Chancellor Merz echoed that in an interview after the meeting. "This isn't just about Ukraine's territory; it's about the political order of Europe. Germany has a major interest and a major responsibility."
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
The mood in Europe was cautiously optimistic after the summit. "Since Trump returned to the White House, the trans-Atlantic alliance has never been as strong," Akhvlediani argued, stressing that European leaders had succeeded in steering him back toward historical allies.
The outcome of the talks also remains provisional. "Trump can change his views very quickly," Möller notes. "This is an evolving situation, and I am hesitant to think of this as a very important moment in this process towards finding peace for Ukraine and territorial integrity for Ukraine."
More steps will be needed, yet one lesson stood out: Europe has no choice but to stand united. The challenge is immense, Möller added, but "Europe has no alternative but to try, and they are doing the right things."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
40 minutes ago
- DW
Ukraine security guarantees: What is Germany's role ? – DW – 08/19/2025
After the EU-US summit on Russia's war against Ukraine, a debate is underway in Germany about security guarantees and what role Germany should play going forward. All participants agreed that the meeting in Washington was held in good faith. US President Donald Trump had invited high-ranking representatives of the EU, NATO and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Washington with the foal of peace in Ukraine. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz expressed his overall satisfaction with the summit. "It could have gone differently. But my expectations have not only been met, they have been exceeded," said Merz in Washington after the end of the discussions. The Chancellor stated, however, that a summit between Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin would have to be carefully planned. "We don't know whether the Russian president will have the courage to attend such a summit. Therefore, persuasion will be needed," added Merz. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The EU-US summit did demonstrate a partial agreement between the US and Europe. However, it also became clear that the US and Europe have different ideas about the path to peace in Ukraine. President Trump is aiming for a comprehensive peace agreement, while he believes a prior ceasefire is unnecessary. The Europeans have taken a completely different view. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was very clear in the public discussion he had with Donald Trump. He vehemently called for a ceasefire as a starting point for further negotiations. "To be honest, we all would like to see a ceasefire," said Merz. He said that he could not imagine that the next meeting would take place without such an agreement. The credibility of further negotiations depended on this issue. In an interview with DW, security expert Rafael Loss from the think tank European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) explains that differences in approach between America and the EU could cause conflict: "There are obviously very different expectations as to how talks should be approached. Donald Trump is much closer to Vladimir Putin on this issue when he says we have to resolve the big issues first." Ukraine is afraid that Russia will continue its attacks even after a ceasefire or peace agreement has been concluded. During the Crimean conflict in 2014, Putin repeatedly ignored agreements and continued to send troops. The US president has instead remained rather vague when it came to security guarantees. In this regard, Trump said, the Europeans are "the first line of defense." But Washington would also do its part, the President added. Assurances for Ukraine along the lines of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty have been members of the defense alliance undertake to support each other in the event of an attack in such a way that "an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all." The idea for such assurances was put forward by Italian head of government Giorgia Meloni, who has a close relationship of trust with US President Donald Trump. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Security guarantees could also mean that Ukrainian troops would be supported by soldiers from the EU or NATO to secure a possible peace agreement. The question of whether German troops could also be deployed for peacekeeping is also being discussed. For some time now, France and the UK have been discussing the possibility of European peacekeeping troops for Ukraine. Following the summit, Merz left open the question of whether Germany would participate. "It is too early to give a definitive answer," the chancellor emphasized. He said it would have to be discussed with his governing coalition back in Berlin. This would also include the question of whether the Bundestag would "have to take decisions that require a mandate." A vote in the Bundestag is required to decide on foreign deployments of the Bundeswehr. In an interview with DW, security expert Loss explains that various models for a security operation have been discussed in the EU. Realistically, this would include the training of military personnel in Ukraine as well as logistical support from the navy or air force. However, Loss also said that "Ground troops would be logical, considering that Germany is the largest country in Europe. In this respect, Germany does bear some responsibility. I think it would be a mistake to rule it out from the outset." By contrast, Adis Ahmetovi, a foreign policy expert from the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), a coalition partner to Merz's conservative bloc of Christian Democratic Union and Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU), is open to the option of the German Armed Forces participating in a future peacekeeping mission in Ukraine. On X, the leader of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and opposition politician Alice Weidel warned that Germany could become a target itself if the US withdrew and then demanded: "Germany needs reconciliation with Russia instead of permanent confrontation." Left Party leader Jan van Aken, on the other hand, brought up the possibility of a UN peacekeeping force of 30,000 to 40,000 soldiers as a security guarantee for Ukraine. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Chancellor Merz made it clear at the beginning of his term of office that he places great importance on foreign and defense policy in these turbulent times of war against Ukraine. It was he who organized the meeting the previous week in preparation for the Alaska summit. Merz has come to be the leader of the European community. Shortly after being elected Chancellor, he traveled to Kyiv together with other European politicians to show solidarity with Ukraine. The first meeting with the US president last June was also a success for Friedrich Merz, who was obviously able to develop a rapport with the American president. Praise for Merz's decisive commitment to a resolute German foreign policy, which many had missed under his predecessor Olaf Scholz (SPD), even came from opposition parties. Security expert Rafael Loss also assessed Merz's political actions towards peace in Ukraine as "positive." But, he added, "He certainly has a special way of dealing with Donald Trump, as we have seen in recent months. But he considers himself to be closely aligned with his European colleagues, articulating a European stance together." This would also include the question of whether a vote in the Bundestag would have to take place in order to decide on foreign deployments of the you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter, Berlin Briefing.
DW
2 hours ago
- DW
What did Europe achieve at the Washington summit on Ukraine? – DW – 08/19/2025
European leaders backed Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy in his return to the White House to press Donald Trump on security guarantees and block territorial concessions. How much progress did the talks bring? The mood at the White House in Washington, DC, on Monday appeared quite different from the debacle earlier this year when US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance scolded Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in front of the cameras. On Monday, Zelenskyy walked into the Oval Office in a crisp navy suit, not his trademark olive fatigues, and handed Trump a personal letter from his wife, Olena, to First Lady Melania Trump. The left, thanking her for raising the plight of Ukraine's abducted children with Putin, seemed to set a more diplomatic tone. European leaders were determined to support him. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen were among those who made the trip to Washington on short notice. They sat in a protective semicircle around Zelenskyy, keen to ensure that another Oval Office humiliation was avoided and that the trans-Atlantic alliance held. "This was a meeting where Europeans had the chance to show their unity and determination," said Almut Möller, Director of European and Global Affairs at the European Policy Centre, to DW. "Europe is not powerless." The European leaders' clearest goal of the White House talks was Trump's public endorsement of security guarantees. The US president delivered; standing beside Zelenskyy, he pledged that the US would "coordinate" with Europe on protections for Ukraine. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte described them as "Article 5-type guarantees," though not NATO membership itself. Article 5 is the alliance's mutual defense clause, stating that an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. That reassurance mattered in Europe, as fear had risen that Trump might again lean towards Russia after he met President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. Yet the details of the security guarantees remain undefined. Trump equally pushed back on Europe's call for a ceasefire as a starting point. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video After the meeting, Rutte told Fox News, a US news broadcaster, that there are currently 30 countries in the mix in the so-called "Coalition of the Willing." Their defense ministers could meet as early as this week to begin ironing out the details of these security guarantees. Zelenskyy was hopeful, telling reporters the guarantees will "be formalized on paper within the next week to 10 days." In an interview with DW, researcher Tinatin Akhvlediani at the Brussels Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) evaluated these announcements of security guarantees as an essential step, "especially if the United States is engaged in backing them up." However, she warns that this backup is essential "because, as we know, the United States currently provides the military equipment and weaponry that the EU cannot replace." Equally important was what did not happen. During the meeting, there was no mention of Ukraine ceding territory. The reported that one European official who was part of the delegation to Washington said that Trump explained, "That is not my business, that is a matter for Ukraine," effectively ruling out forcing land swaps. Akhvlediani maintained that the risk remains. "We will have to see what happens next, as we don't know what exactly happened behind closed doors." As of now, Putin continues to demand Ukrainian withdrawal from parts of Donetsk and Luhansk. French President Macron openly voiced doubts about the Kremlin's intentions: "His ultimate goal is to take as much territory as possible," the French president warned. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video According to the Kremlin, Trump interrupted the talks with Zelenskyy and the European leaders to conduct a 40-minute call with Putin. The US president then moved the process forward by proposing a trilateral summit with himself, Zelenskyy and Putin, possibly within weeks. While no date and location have been set, European leaders said they would support such a meeting if it reinforced Ukraine's sovereignty and avoided concessions imposed from outside. Both analysts agree that such a meeting is of utmost importance. "Putin now has to show that he wants peace," Möller said. For Europe, direct talks between Ukraine and Russia carry both opportunity and risk. It could mark the beginning of a genuine peace process or open the door to renewed pressure on Ukraine to compromise, this time without European leaders by his side. For the European leaders in attendance, the summit went beyond its outcomes. The talks showed that Europe can be more than a bystander and is willing to go the extra mile regarding security guarantees, Möller said. "This is about each and every European leader sitting in this room, knowing that there is a threat out there that this threat might affect their own country. This has brought them together," he said. German Chancellor Merz echoed that in an interview after the meeting. "This isn't just about Ukraine's territory; it's about the political order of Europe. Germany has a major interest and a major responsibility." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The mood in Europe was cautiously optimistic after the summit. "Since Trump returned to the White House, the trans-Atlantic alliance has never been as strong," Akhvlediani argued, stressing that European leaders had succeeded in steering him back toward historical allies. The outcome of the talks also remains provisional. "Trump can change his views very quickly," Möller notes. "This is an evolving situation, and I am hesitant to think of this as a very important moment in this process towards finding peace for Ukraine and territorial integrity for Ukraine." More steps will be needed, yet one lesson stood out: Europe has no choice but to stand united. The challenge is immense, Möller added, but "Europe has no alternative but to try, and they are doing the right things."
DW
3 hours ago
- DW
What's behind the US's antagonism against South Africa? – DW – 08/19/2025
South Africa has rejected a recent report by the United States on its human rights record. It's not the first time the country finds itself in the firing line of the US. What's behind it? South Africa has staunchly rejected a report published on the website of the US Department of State about human rights practices in the country. The document claims that South Africa's human rights situation had "significantly worsened during the year," and references the ongoing debate on land reform. In particular, the paper highlights the signing of the now-infamous Expropriation Bill last year, classifying this move as a "worrying step towards land expropriation of Afrikaners and further abuses against racial minorities in the country." Signed into law in January, the Expropriation Act states that the South African government can legally take private property for public use — but also spells out fair compensation and only allows seizure in certain instances. The South African government meanwhile has stressed on multiple occasions that the Expropriation Act only aims "to provide for the expropriation of property for a public purpose or in the public interest." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The document by the US Department of State further alleges that the rate of extrajudicial killings in South Africa has also been growing. It singled out recent reports about two women who were murdered on a farm and whose bodies later were fed to pigs, attempting to link this incident to the government. US President Donald Trump's administration had previously gone as far as accusing South Africa of deliberate violence against the minority white Afrikaner group, saying that thousands were actively fleeing the country. Some who are or were close to Trump, including his billionaire former top adviser Elon Musk, even claimed that South Africa was committing a genocide against white people — a claim which has widely been rejected by the vast majority of South Africans. Analyst and author Hamilton Wende — himself a white South African — told DW earlier this year that anyone who thinks that white people are being massacred is part of a "rightwing extremist viewpoint, which is not reflective of ... what the government thinks, and of what the country thinks generally." President Trump launched a resettlement program for white Afrikaners to the US as refugees earlier this year, doubling down on his unfounded narrative that authorities in South Africa were allegedly complicit in actions that amount to an infringement of the rights and lives of these people. As was the case with all previous accusations leveled against South Africa, the government has also dismissed the latest reports squarely, saying they were "deeply flawed" and "inaccurate" while failing "to reflect the reality of our constitutional democracy." While expressing its general disappointment with the US Department of State document, the government also clarified the facts behind some of the specifitc claims made in the report, saying that the report had been compiled in a manner which was based "on a-contextual information and discredited accounts." Among other things, the government stressed that it had nothing to do with the deaths of the two women, pointing to independent media reports which explain that the women had been killed by a farm owner who is also accused of forcing one of his workers to feed their bodies to pigs. Furthermore, South Africa's Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) also said in a statement that is was "ironic" that as a country which had recently withdrawn from the United Nations Human Rights Council, the US should make assessments on the issue of human rights in the first Tselapedi, a politics and international studies lecturer at South Africa's Rhodes University, believes that the US is trying to drum up negative publicity about South Africa. Tselapedi told DW that this is in response to South Africa's case against Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in late 2023. According to Tselapedi, the latest report by the Department of State is an attempt to chip away at "the international standing of South Africa when it comes to the ICJ case against Israel" by making South Africa look like it has no moral ground to question Israel on account of alleged irregularities with its own human rights record. South Africa had filed a case against Israel at the ICJ, accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, which generated great international interest and garnered support by governments widely considered hostile to the US, such as Iran. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Tselapedi also asserts, however, that most other countries are likely aware of this deliberate approach to try to undermine South Africa's image, and that the government should be undeterred by such interventions. DIRCO meanwhile proactively drew attention in its response to a recent assessment from the United Nations Human Rights Office, which described South Africa's Expropriation Act as a "critical step in addressing the country's racially imbalanced land ownership." "This recognition from the UN's primary human rights body underscores the integrity of our legislative processes aimed at rectifying historical injustices in a constitutional and human-rights-based manner," DIRCO added. Former South African ambassador to the US Ebrahim Rasool, meanwhile, also shared the government's view that the Expropriation Act is being used as a scapegoat to draw attention away from the ICJ case against the Israeli government, which he said did not sit well with many in Washington. In response, Rasool was promptly expelled from the US after being declared persona non grata by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Tselapedi meanwhile also emphasized the fact that South Africa's role in the BRICS bloc of nations might also feature prominently in the US' reasoning to try to taint the nation's reputation amid threats that BRICS' members might be launching their own currency. This ultimately would weaken the US-dollar standard as the world's foremost reserve currency, while affecting economies and their trade practices around the world. Trump himself has warned that he would do anything in his power to stop this plan from succeeding. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The drive for a BRICS currency is chiefly being led by China and RussiaHowever, the extent of South Africa's volatility in this geopolitical game could already been when Trump was reelected last November. The South African Rand plummeted upon the news that Trump would be returning to the White House. Having now been slapped with 30% tariffs by the US and having suffered severe cuts in USAID since the beginning of the year, South Africa has been hard hit by the Trump administration. Tselapedi, however, notes that the government can perhaps find some solace in the fact that official reports published by the US under President Trump are increasingly being viewed "with suspicion and caution" around the globe.
