Latest news with #EUInstituteforSecurityStudies
Politico
a day ago
- Business
- Politico
Putin got a warm Trump meeting. Europe is afraid Zelenskyy won't.
While publicly Europe and Ukraine have appeared upbeat, privately officials were wary of Putin's red carpet welcome back to the West, where he secured the veneer of global legitimacy without making the kind of gestures toward peace the U.S., Europe and Ukraine have sought. 'Worries have been there all the way this year, and yesterday's meeting did not really help,' a European official said. Trump's position on the war has yo-yoed in recent weeks. While he had for months blamed Ukraine for the conflict, he had been more critical of Putin and Russia in the lead-up to the summit. He even said Putin would face 'severe consequences,' if he did not agree to stop the war after Friday's gathering. But after several hours of meetings with Putin in Alaska, Trump backtracked on a demand for an immediate ceasefire, again said it would be up to Ukraine to end the fighting and advised Kyiv to 'take the deal,' without specifying what Putin had suggested. Trump said after the summit that he negotiated with Putin over land swaps but declined to provide more details. The White House didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. French President Emmanuel Macron and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Sunday will lead a teleconference among the 'coalition of the willing' — countries that have indicated they will provide troops and other support to Ukraine at the end of the war, according to a European official. Ahead of the summit, Trump said he supported some American role in providing security guarantees — some form of assurance or support from Washington to deter Russia from attacking again after a peace deal is agreed. Nordic and Baltic leaders welcomed those commitments again after Trump spoke with European officials late Friday. While Trump did much more than usual to consult with Europe in the lead-up to the summit with Putin and after, the frequent contact does not seem to have yielded tangible results. European officials are relieved that Trump did not agree to a deal with Putin but disappointed that the threat of steep secondary tariffs targeting third countries buying Russian oil was tabled. 'They want to try to influence the negotiation process as much as possible, because they know Trump really wants to do it this way, and they don't want to leave the initiative to Putin,' said Giuseppe Spatafora, a former NATO official who is now a research analyst at the EU Institute for Security Studies. 'In general, the Europeans talk much more often to Trump than during the first 100 days, which is good. They have influence. But it's limited.' Zelenskyy's last visit to the Oval Office in February quickly went off the rails when Vice President JD Vance and later Trump both lectured him for not being grateful enough for American support and overplaying what they said was a weak diplomatic position. Zelenskyy's decision to wear a black polo, black pants and boots rather than a suit further soured the atmosphere. But Trump and Zelenskyy have been on better terms in recent meetings, as Kyiv's allies sought to improve the relationship and Trump's frustration with Putin mounted.
Hindustan Times
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Feckless Europe accepts Trump's Lone Ranger diplomacy
IF EUROPE CANNOT have America as a global policeman, it will settle for Donald Trump as the Lone Ranger. That, in effect, is the message from the leaders of Britain, France and Germany. All three have come close to endorsing strikes on Iran's nuclear programme by Israel and America. Many will welcome his imposition of a ceasefire and his imperious order to Israeli warplanes to 'turn around' rather than punish an apparent Iranian breach of it. The contrast with the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 is jarring. Back then, the West was split by debates about international law. For a camp led by France and Germany, only the UN Security Council—the governing body of the post-1945 order—could authorise attacks on Saddam Hussein. American talk of preventive strikes was dismissed as cowboy justice. Today, though, the initial response of Sir Keir Starmer, Britain's prime minister, was as clinical as a Pentagon press release. 'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat,' declared the man who had previously made his name as a human-rights lawyer. In post-war Europe, crafting elegant rationales for impotence is a prized skill. France's president, Emmanuel Macron, showed mastery of the form after Israel's initial raids on Iran. He told the Elysée press corps that an Iranian bomb would be an 'existential' threat to the world, and that—though France favoured a diplomatic solution—Israel's strikes had set back Iran's nuclear-enrichment and ballistic-missile capabilities, and so were steps 'in the right direction'. After America joined Israel in striking Iran, Mr Macron toughened his stance a bit. On June 23rd he spoke of the 'legitimacy' of efforts to neutralise Iran's nuclear structures, but added that America's actions lack 'a legal framework'. Winning the prize for bluntness, Germany's chancellor, Friedrich Merz, told German television that Israel is doing 'the dirty work' for 'all of us'. Geopolitics help explain European meekness. Western governments fear power vacuums in the Middle East. They were thus glad to hear Mr Trump forswear regime change in Iran. Selfishly, it is also a relief for Western governments to be spared Trumpian lectures about free-riding allies. Mr Trump is proud that only America's bombs can curb Iran. Before ordering his raid, he scoffed at European offers to engage with Iranian diplomats, saying: 'Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this one.' Europe's response is rational, but revealing. In foreign policy a useful principle is: that which cannot be changed must be welcomed, says Steven Everts, the director of the EU Institute for Security Studies, an EU policy-planning agency. Even so, he concedes, Europe's response 'speaks to our weakness'. For their part, non-Western powers have demanded that America and Israel heed international law. After Israel began bombing, China's supreme leader, Xi Jinping, telephoned a counterpart to agree that: 'The use of force is not a right way to resolve international disputes.' In particular, 'the red line of protecting civilians in armed conflicts must not be crossed,' declared Mr Xi. His lofty words were undercut only by the civilian-killing record of the other president on the line, his friend Vladimir Putin of Russia. China wants regional stability and fears higher energy prices, says a Chinese scholar in Beijing. As for playing a more active role, that depends on whether warring parties want China's help and 'whether China has any real leverage over the matter'. For now neither condition applies, adds the scholar. State-funded Chinese analysts signal that China, the largest buyer of Iranian oil, would be displeased if Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz to shipping. Should Iran try a nuclear breakout, a prominent Chinese commentator suggested, China might allow the imposition of new sanctions on Iran, by abstaining at the UN rather than casting a veto. Europe could come back into the picture as a diplomatic player, suggests João Vale de Almeida, a former EU ambassador to America and the UN during the gruelling years of nuclear talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the so-called P5), plus Germany and the EU. He predicts that any new pact with Iran, even one backed by America's hard power, may rather resemble the JCPOA, the multilateral agreement generated by those talks that Mr Trump quit in 2018. He laments the past seven years as 'a big detour' of lost time and credibility. No cowboy sunsets in the real world A big change since 2018 involves the splintering of the P5, whose members—America, Britain, China, France and Russia—were remarkably unified in their opposition to an Iranian bomb, says Catherine Ashton, who as EU foreign-policy chief from 2009 to 2014 chaired nuclear negotiations with Iran. The assembled envoys felt a sense of historic common purpose, says Baroness Ashton. That survived even crises like the political protests that swept Ukraine in 2013. She recalls leaving the Iran meetings in Vienna and flying to Kyiv to denounce Russian meddling in Ukrainian politics. Russia's lead negotiator would fly to Moscow to condemn the West. Then both would return to Vienna for constructive talks. She remembers China as 'a team player' on Iran nukes, too. Today Mr Trump seems interested in bilateral dealmaking, observes Lady Ashton. That approach raises hard questions about Iran's incentives to disarm. America acting alone can apply coercion. But given Iranian distrust of Mr Trump, only an international coalition can credibly offer the reward that Iran seeks: a long-term economic reopening to the world. The Lone Ranger was not big on commitment. After dispensing vigilante justice he would ride into the sunset. Western leaders know the limits of that approach. Alas, they must deal with the American president they have. Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.
Euronews
08-03-2025
- Politics
- Euronews
Brussels, my love? Trump's power play with Zelenskyy
In this week's edition of our weekly talk show, participants discuss the dramatic shake-up regarding Ukraine diplomacy ADVERTISEMENT What happened at the White House didn't stay at the White House. The made-for-tv clash between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy left America's allies in Europe stunned. Never before has there been such a public display of disdain and distrust between allies and partners. The minerals deal that was supposed to be signed in Washington, is now up in the air - as is the future commitment of the United States to supporting Ukraine. The disaster in the Oval Office left European leaders scrambling for answers. One option is a massive ramp-up of military spending to support Ukraine and defend Europe alone - in case Trump and Elon Musk decide to unceremoniously withdraw U.S. troops from the continent. To fill this void, the British prime minister even suggested a 'coalition of the willing' to protect Ukraine and a peace agreement with Russia that may or may not come. Where is all this going? The perfect question for our guests this week: Shada Islam, independent analyst and commentator on European affairs from Belgium, Ville Niinistö, Member of the European Parliament for the Greens from Finland and Giuseppe Spatafora, research analyst at the EU Institute for Security Studies. Europe may well be on its own when it comes to supporting Ukraine in the future. However, the participants at the London summit proved to Trump that they, too, can create facts that will influence the final settlement of the war. First: more military support for Ukraine. Second, no demilitarization of Ukraine after the end of the conflict. And third, security guarantees from European forces behind Ukrainian lines. Can such a concept work and could it impress Trump? The Trump administration is currently taking a turn that will shock many by focusing entirely on direct negotiations with Moscow and hinting at peace strategies that are entirely to Russia's liking. A reorientation that is not totally surprising given Trump's admiration for authoritarian rulers such as Putin. Are we witnessing the creation of a new geopolitical reality here? Is Trump taking a domestic political risk with this realignment? This episode was recorded on 5 March ahead of the European Council summit in Brussels.
