A high-stakes emergency summit in London on March 2nd brought together key European NATO countries, along with Canada, to discuss a pressing issue—securing a just and sustainable peace deal for Ukraine. The gathering, which expanded to include 15 nations as well as NATO and EU heads, was fueled by urgency, particularly in light of the disturbing spectacle at the White House just days earlier on February 28th. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had faced an onslaught of verbal hostility from Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, reinforcing the need for Europe to step up its commitment to Ukraine. Yet, despite the critical nature of the meeting, concrete details remained elusive.
For British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who chaired the summit, the priorities were clear—strengthen Europe's commitment to Ukraine’s defense, mend transatlantic relations, and bridge the widening gap between Zelensky and Trump. Having met with Trump in Washington on February 27th under less hostile circumstances, Starmer was careful in his diplomatic approach. Before the summit began, he assured the public that the American president was just as dedicated to a lasting peace deal as the European leaders in attendance. However, he sidestepped the more pressing question: would Trump’s envisioned peace deal align with Ukraine’s and Europe’s interests?
The meeting concluded after roughly two hours, culminating in a broad agreement on principles but lacking substantive details. The core proposal centered on a four-pillar approach, spearheaded initially by Britain and France:
-
Military Aid Must Continue – Europe would ensure that weapons and military support keep flowing to Ukraine as the war persists.
-
Intensified Economic Pressure on Russia – Sanctions and economic measures against Russia would be ramped up.
-
Ukraine at the Negotiation Table – Any peace talks must involve Ukraine and guarantee its sovereignty and security.
-
European Military Deployment – A coalition of willing European nations would send forces to Ukraine to deter future Russian aggression, backed by American military support as a fail-safe mechanism.
The last point, however, is where the plan might falter. Both Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron pushed hard for U.S. backing, fully aware that a solely European force would be extremely vulnerable. Their efforts, however, seemed to yield little. While Starmer hinted at some encouragement from Trump following a conversation after the summit, skepticism remains warranted.
Trump’s stance on Putin presents another challenge. Unlike European leaders, including Zelensky, who believe Putin would break any agreement whenever convenient, Trump appears to view him as reliable. In fact, Trump reassured Macron that Putin had no objection to European troop deployments in Ukraine. The claim was swiftly dismissed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who warned such actions would further escalate the conflict.
Despite the optimism following the London summit, the likelihood of achieving a peace deal that satisfies both Ukraine and Russia remains slim. The biggest concern for Ukraine and Europe is the looming possibility of the U.S. cutting off military aid altogether. Trump’s lingering resentment toward Zelensky, dating back to the Ukrainian leader’s refusal to provide damaging information on the Biden family in 2019, adds another layer of complexity. This refusal contributed to Trump’s first impeachment, and more recently, Zelensky’s firm stance during negotiations over mineral deals has not helped matters. Additionally, the Trump administration’s growing sentiment that Europe should take full responsibility for its own security only heightens fears of a total U.S. withdrawal of military support.
If American aid does get severed, Europe’s response will need to be decisive. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has suggested transforming Ukraine into a "steel porcupine"—a heavily fortified state capable of repelling Russian advances independently. The financial and logistical challenge is immense, but not insurmountable. While Nordic and Eastern European nations have committed between 1-2.5% of their GDPs to Ukraine’s defense, wealthier nations like Germany and Britain have contributed less than 0.2%, roughly the same as the U.S. France, Spain, and Italy have contributed even less. If Europe wants Ukraine to hold the line, that must change.
Efforts are already underway. The EU is discussing loosening debt rules to facilitate increased defense spending, leveraging bond markets to establish a European defense fund, and considering a rearmament bank modeled after the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Seizing the €210 billion ($218 billion) in frozen Russian assets currently sitting in European banks has also been proposed. Sir John Chipman of the International Institute for Strategic Studies argues that these assets should be used to rebuild Ukraine’s military and civilian infrastructure, giving Ukraine direct access to cutting-edge military technology.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s domestic arms industry is undergoing a resurgence. Denmark has pioneered a financing model that enables European governments to fund arms production directly in Ukraine, a strategy other nations are now replicating. Zelensky has claimed that around 40% of Ukraine’s battlefield needs are being met through domestic production, often in joint ventures with Western firms like Germany’s Rheinmetall and KNDS, a Franco-German enterprise. Some analysts, including Sir Lawrence Freedman, put the number even higher. Ukraine’s defense industry is rapidly expanding, particularly in drone warfare, electronic warfare systems, and artillery production.
However, even with increased European funding, significant challenges remain if the U.S. withdraws completely. European defense manufacturers are scaling up, but not quickly enough to fill the gaps in Ukraine’s most urgent needs. Sourcing arms from South Korea might offer a partial solution, but much of its production is already committed to fulfilling Poland’s $16 billion defense contracts and replenishing its own military stockpiles.
An alternative could be purchasing from American manufacturers, a move that might appeal to Trump’s transactional nature. Yet, this too presents risks. Keir Giles, author of Who Will Defend Europe?, warns that if Trump blames Ukraine for obstructing his preferred peace deal, he could block export licenses or restrict the capabilities of weapons sold to Europe. That would leave European nations scrambling to fill the gap—a nearly impossible task in the short term.
Given these stakes, Starmer and Macron are unlikely to abandon their diplomatic efforts with Trump, even if their prospects appear bleak. European leaders understand that, despite their best efforts, Ukraine’s ability to defend itself still hinges significantly on Washington’s willingness to stay engaged. The challenge ahead is clear: Europe must prepare for the worst while hoping for the best, ensuring that Ukraine has the means to continue resisting Russian aggression, with or without American support.
Login