European leaders are competing to try to figure out how to fill potential gaps in Ukraine and across the continent – President Trump’s White House talks about numbers that dial back into Europe’s U.S. support and forces.
With the war in Ukraine marking its third anniversary and the bold Russian threat, senior European officials flocked to Kiev on Monday to unite.
Meanwhile, European foreign ministers will meet in Brussels and they are expected to debate how much to send to Keefe in their next support programme.
The plan begins with numbers in a single number, but may end up with more than €20 billion, which is the claim of two people familiar with the discussion who discussed the situation of internal deliberations anonymously.
Ministers are also expected to approve a series of sanctions against Russia, which may not please the White House as Mr. Trump is closer to President Vladimir V. Putin.
More broadly, European leaders are also considering the prospect of making troops some kind of peacekeeping or “reliance” troops on the ground in Ukraine, officials said.
Furthermore, they are discussing how to increase military spending more generally and are expected to propose a future blueprint for European defense in mid-March.
In view of the President of the European Council António Costa announced on Sunday evening that he will hold a special meeting of European leaders on March 6 to discuss the Ministry of Defense in Ukraine and Europe and announce that he will hold European leaders and in light of the turmoil and uncertainty of the US commitment to Europe.
The range of activity is at the moment of head rotation in Europe. Until now, the United States has been a major supporter of Ukraine's resistance to Russia's diplomatic, financial and military resistance to invasions, uniting allies three years ago in a leadership role played since World War II.
But Mr. Trump is subverting the process, or at least threatening to do so.
Last week, he seemed to shock European leaders as he seemed to blame the Ukrainian leader for the invasion. He called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “a dictator without elections.” He declared that the outcome of the war was of importance to Europe to the United States, which was far from what he called the “big and beautiful ocean.”
It is unclear whether the United States will cut military spending in Europe. But, as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently suggested, leaders are increasingly worried that the United States will withdraw thousands of troops.
This could make Europe (especially smaller members of the NATO alliance) vulnerable to aggressive Russia.
After the Russian invasion, President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The result for Europe is that the future of defense looks more independent, but also more challenging.
“In fighting for survival, it’s not just the fate of Ukraine that is threatened,” said Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, and other leaders who arrived in Ukraine. “It’s The fate of Europe.”
Europeans have been increasing spending on national defense for several years, especially since the Russian invasion. However, they maintain a distant level with spending and military capabilities, allowing them to manage without the United States.
A frequently used tracker said the United States spent about $119 billion on the war in Ukraine, with $67 billion in military spending. Europe spent $65 billion on military aid, although it cost $21 billion more than the U.S. humanitarian and economic aid.
Currently, European leaders are doing their best to put the United States on the Ukrainian dining table, with critical importance both in Ukraine and in other military affairs. Leaders stressed their willingness to meet Mr. Trump’s demand that Europe assumes primary responsibility for its defense.
“We stop complaining, start acting, unite,” NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said in a speech last week. “I think President Trump's important initiative is to make Ukraine lasting,” he said. Peace.”
If the United States is to retreat vigorously, it will be expensive and difficult to replace in military personnel and exquisite military equipment. Even if Europe now orders such hardware, it will take ten years to receive it.
A recent study by think tank Bruegel showed that without the United States, Europe alone would require 300,000 troops, about 3.5% of its economic output and military spending on rapid storage of ammunition.
The study argues: “Reliable European deterrence, for example, to prevent Russia from making rapid breakthroughs in the Baltic Sea – at least 1,400 tanks, 2,000 infantry fighting vehicles and 700 artillery will be needed.” “This is more than currently in France, Germany, Italy The combat effectiveness of merger with the British Army is more. “
Mr. Rutt is those who stress that, given its criticality to modern defense capabilities, moving forward without the United States is not practical.
But some European leaders – especially French President Emmanuel Macron, have been calling for a greater push within the NATO alliance to take care of themselves. Now, European leaders like Friedrich Merz, who are expected to become Germany's next prime minister after Sunday's election, question whether even the NATO alliance can remain credible.
Mr. Macron is scheduled to visit Washington on Monday and said he plans to urge Mr. Trump not to be “weak” to Mr. Putin. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer will also visit the White House later this week.
Last year, Mr. Macron proposed the idea of putting European troops in Ukraine after the end of the battle, and Mr. Stelmer was committed to considering this. But Mr Starmer said it only works if the United States acts as a “backstage.”
Mr. Trump has said there will be no U.S. troops on the ground in Ukraine, but he has not ruled out the possibility of U.S. air cover. If the “back” would promise the United States that if Russia or anyone else attacks European peacekeepers, they would provide military assistance to European peacekeepers, with little indication that Mr. Trump agrees.
Furthermore, Mr. Putin made it clear that he would not accept the presence of European troops on the Ukrainian ground in any reconciliation.
Currently, part of Europe is ensuring that it sits on the table with the signing of a peace agreement.
“That's what we see in this negotiation table: Ukraine as part of Europe, Europe, the United States and Russia,” Mr Zelensky said at the forum on Sunday.
As Europe considers the future of a more indifferent United States, a major question exists across the continent: How will it fund more military spending?
The expansion of European military capabilities will cost a lot – co-financing may be required. EU leaders have been studying many possibilities, from issuing ordinary debt to allowing more swing space in EU deficit rules if space is needed to fund military spending. Such issues could play a major role in the European Council meeting on March 6 and the EU’s highly anticipated “White Paper” on Defense, with recommendations on needed investments, especially in the European military sector . They may dominate among European leaders in the next few days and weeks.
But for now, leaders are engaging with the reality of the sudden change in the United States and what it means to their future and Ukraine.
Mr. Trump's statement was very interesting, said Kaja Kallas, the top EU diplomat, during a foreign affairs meeting on Monday morning. ”
She said when she heard Mr. Trump call Mr. Zelensky a dictator, “I’m sure he’s making mistakes and mixing two people,” confusing Ukrainian leaders with Russian leaders.
When asked if Mr. Trump was acting in the Russian disinformation bubble, Ms. Karas was heading to Washington on Tuesday, and he replied: “It's obvious that the Russian narrative is very strongly represented.”
Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot used stronger wording when he entered the Brussels party on Monday.
“It's totally unacceptable, putting the United States in the same position – there is an invader and another victim,” he said.
