Uncertainty and indecision: Insights from the emergency EU leaders' summit held in Paris.

One of the primary objectives of the emergency informal summit of European leaders in the French capital is to do everything possible and impossible to ensure that Europe is not sidelined in the process of resolving the Russian-Ukrainian war. The feeling that Europeans are being pushed not just to the second but to the tenth plan is not unfounded. This stems from the fact that over the past weekend, the U.S. special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, explicitly stated that Europe would not be present at the negotiation table between representatives of the U.S. and Russia, nor in subsequent separate American-Ukrainian talks. Although the retired general immediately clarified that European interests would be taken into account, the EU decided to take a preventive stance.

Meanwhile, the White House reached out to the countries of the continent with a sort of survey regarding who among them could contribute to security guarantees for Ukraine, who is willing to send troops there as peacekeeping forces, and what their numbers might be. Among other things, European leaders attempted to find answers to these questions on the evening of February 17 during a meeting at the Élysée Palace. One of the first to speak on this matter was neighboring Poland. In particular, the country's Foreign Minister, Radosław Sikorski, noted that there should indeed be an "EU component" in ensuring Ukraine's security. However, he added that the presence of Polish troops on Ukrainian territory "is not considered because Poland's duty to NATO is to protect its eastern flank, meaning its own territory."

Shortly thereafter, the possibility of deploying Polish troops in our country was also dismissed by Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who emphasized that the Republic would "support other countries willing to provide such security guarantees through logistical and political assistance." In turn, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson stated that sending Swedish troops to Ukraine as part of peacekeeping forces is "absolutely possible."

On the other hand, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer expressed readiness to send British peacekeeping forces to Ukraine "if an agreement on a ceasefire is reached." "We must show that we take our own defense and burden seriously. We have talked about this for too long, and President Trump is right to demand that we address it," Mr. Starmer noted.

He emphasized that the UK is "ready to play a leading role" in the defense and security of Ukraine, including allocating £3 billion annually until 2030, but U.S. support "will remain critically important." "American security guarantees are essential for lasting peace because only the U.S. can deter Putin from further attacks," the head of the British government summarized.

This tactical line appears to be supported by the majority of European states. According to Politico, both Kyiv and Brussels indeed insist that Washington must be part of the security guarantees, not excluding the involvement of American troops in future peacekeeping missions. Additionally, Europe has begun to lean towards the feasibility of a plan for Ukraine's automatic NATO membership in the event of a clear violation of the ceasefire regime by Putin's Russia. This idea was openly supported by Finnish President Alexander Stubb.

However, this idea seems, to say the least, unrealistic, as, firstly, all member states of the alliance must give their "yes" to a new member, and secondly, the U.S., which de facto plays a dominant role in NATO, is skeptical about Kyiv's prospects.

By the way, according to The Economist, during the recent Munich Security Conference, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance told allies that, in the opinion of the U.S., peacekeeping forces would only be able to effectively carry out their mission if, alongside European soldiers, troops from non-European countries, such as Brazil and China, were included in the contingent. What the mentioned countries think about this is still unknown. Moreover, this specific case is not publicly commented on in Europe.

First to speak after the rendezvous at the French president's residence was German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. He opposed discussions about deploying European troops in Ukraine within the framework of a potential peace settlement. According to him, it is currently "completely premature to discuss" the possible dispatch of European troops to our country. The head of the German government also indicated that he is "even a little irritated" by these debates.

"Behind Ukraine's back, there are discussions about the unsuccessful outcomes of peace negotiations that Ukraine did not agree to and did not sit at the negotiation table, regarding possible outcome options. This is extremely inappropriate. We do not even know what the result will be," he explained his position.

Separately, Mr. Scholz emphasized that Europe is still "in the midst of a brutal war unleashed by Russia, which is advancing without any reflection." "There should be no separation of security and responsibility between Europe and the United States. NATO is based on the principle that we always act together and share risks, thereby guaranteeing our security. This must not be questioned," Olaf Scholz concluded, who, by the way, risks losing the keys to the chancellor's office following the extraordinary elections in the Bundestag on February 23.

Shortly after Scholz, the aforementioned British Prime Minister outlined his position following the emergency summit in Paris in a comment to Sky News. Keir Starmer emphasized the importance of U.S. participation in future security guarantees for Ukraine, calling it "the only way" to effectively deter Putin's Russia in the future.

Mr. Starmer reiterated his thesis about the readiness to deploy British troops to Ukraine if a peace agreement is reached, but emphasized that this must happen with U.S. support. Additionally, the British Prime Minister mentioned that he would travel to Washington next week to meet with Donald Trump "to discuss what we consider key elements for lasting peace." He also announced negotiations with President Zelensky "in the coming days" and expressed hope that new talks with European allies would take place following his visit to the U.S.

Already on the night of Tuesday, February 18, the organizer of the emergency summit in Paris contacted the Ukrainian leader by phone. Following the virtual dialogue with Macron, Zelensky posted the following on social media: "Emmanuel met with other European favorites. They talked about the global situation, the situation in Europe, and, in particular, security guarantees for Ukraine. Emmanuel and I have a shared vision: Ukraine needs reliable and strong security guarantees. Any other solution without such guarantees, such as a fragile ceasefire, will only become another deception from Russia and a prelude to a new Russian war against Ukraine or other countries in Europe."

In turn, Mr. Macron emphasized on social network X that achieving peace in Ukraine is only possible with the cessation of Russian aggression and the provision of strong and reliable security guarantees for Ukraine, adding that without such guarantees, there is a risk of repeating the scenario of the Minsk agreements, which "did not bring long-term peace."

A bit of positivity in the ocean of pessimism came from the German publication Berliner Zeitung, which reports that the European Union is discussing a large-scale plan to increase defense spending, which includes support for Ukraine to purchase military equipment and could reach €700 billion.

So far, there have been no public announcements regarding the volumes of financing. However, the publication cites a statement from the head of the German Foreign Ministry, Annalena Baerbock, in an interview with Bloomberg during the security conference in Munich, in which she hinted that the figure might be around €700 billion.

"We will launch a large package that has never existed before in this dimension. Similar to the euro crisis or the corona crisis, now we are talking about a financial package for security in Europe. This will happen in the near future," Baerbock said in an interview she gave before the emergency summit on Ukraine in Paris on Monday, February 17.

Meanwhile, major global media continue to actively comment on the rift between the U.S. and European countries, which became evident during the Munich Conference. In particular, The Economist notes the following: "Some European leaders have begun to seriously fear that the real comparison with America's plans could be Yalta and a new division of Europe into Western and Russian spheres of influence. Alongside this, this chaos may create an opportunity for Ukraine and its allies to attempt to influence what happens next." In turn, the German Der Spiegel is convinced that Europe, after the conference in Munich, "is not seen by Americans as a serious geopolitical player." "Even where, as in the case of the conflict with Russia, European security interests are severely violated, they are not taken into account. This is absolute humiliation... In these days, a heavy blow has been dealt to transatlantic relations," the publication concludes.

That after "Munich-2025" Europe is facing a historical challenge is believed by the French Le Monde. The publication, questioning whether the U.S. and Europe can work together to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine "while simultaneously waging an ideological war against each other," summarizes: "This important question for the future of all Europeans remains unanswered for now." Europeans, Le Monde notes, are belatedly realizing that they have fallen into a trap, becoming dependent on a security ally (the U.S. - ed.) that now behaves more like an adversary than a friend. It was precisely at the Munich Security Conference, the publication emphasizes, that Europeans "suddenly awoke," although they should have done so much earlier.

In fact, the meeting in Saudi Arabia demonstrated that the U.S. is ready to "reconcile" Ukraine and Europe with Russia at the expense of Ukraine and Europe themselves. The statements from