EU’s Emergency Summit

Next Steps for Ukraine and EU-US Relations

Europeans were struggling to find a common approach, after the Munich Security Conference (MSC) revealed a rift in the transatlantic relations, where U.S. Vice-President JD Vance criticised the state of democracy and free speech in Europe and publicly put into question whether the US and Europe still shared common values. They watched on as the United States and Russia met in Riyadh to discuss possible terms for a peace or at least a ceasefire in Ukraine, with neither Ukrainians nor Europeans invited to the negotiations. Subsequently, obtaining security guarantees from the U.S. the possibility of stationing a European peace keeping force in Ukraine became a top priority. Questions arose about the willingness of the U.S. to provide such guarantees after U.S. President Donald J. Trump publicly called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Selenskyj a “dictator”. Unlike under the previous Biden-Administration, under President Trump there would no longer be unconditional military support for Ukraine. Selenskyj, aware of Ukraine’s dependence on U.S. security support, leveraged the U.S. President’s desire to access Ukraine’s critical minerals in exchange for American security guarantees.

This led to the infamous meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Selenskyj and U.S. President Donald J. Trump, U.S. Vice President JD Vance, and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the White House. The meeting was ostensibly about discussing the signing of an economic deal that would have granted the USA the right to exploit resources in Ukraine, but it was clear the Ukrainians were seeking security guarantees in exchange. Selenskyj was apparently open to trading his personal political future for Ukraine's NATO membership. However, no deal was signed when tensions publicly escalated during the discussion, with JD Vance calling Selenskyj “disrespectful” and Trump accusing him of “risking a third World War”, raising the question: are Ukraine-US relations damaged beyond repair, with dire consequences for Europe as a whole?

Is Europe prepared this time?

Similar to the shockwaves caused by JD Vance’s speech at the aforementioned MSC, which were immediately followed by a meeting of European leaders in Paris, this new earthquake triggered another high-level response. This time, a second meeting took place in London, with even more governments involved. There, a “coalition of the willing“ emerged. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated that “a number of countries” joined Britain and France’s plan to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine if a ceasefire was to take effect. The UK was also willing to send not only boots on the ground but also jets in the air.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who also attended the meeting, announced initiatives to “ramp up defense spending”. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, in London repeated her calls for Ukraine to be brought into a position of strength. She underlined the need “to rearm Europe” and announced that she would shortly present a comprehensive plan to the European Council. The EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, expressed that “the free world needs a new leader. It is up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge.”

After the German elections on February 23rd, the Christian Democrat Union (CDU) emerged as the strongest party in Germany. Their leader, Friedrich Merz, started coalition talks with the Social Democrats (SPD) of former Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who himself will not join the next German government. With the ongoing diplomatic row between Washington and Kyiv in mind, the two negotiating German parties are discussing historic spending (€500 billion) on arms and infrastructure. If this plan becomes a reality, Germany must take responsibility as Europe's economic powerhouse and, now also as the largest military spender, assume a leading role. It can no longer be absent from European initiatives, as it has been in recent months.

However, before these special funds become reality, the German parliament has to vote for a change of the German constitution, the Basic Law, in order to have a legal basis for those special funds. Germany will with high probability get another so-called Grand Coalition formed by the CDU and the SPD. The bigger problem is however that those two parties, even if the Greens vote with them, do not have the needed two third majority for a reform of the Basic Law and thus the passing of the mentioned special funds. Both the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Left Party (Linke) are likely to block together any reforms that include an increase for defence spending.

Although a German decision is still not made, most European countries have started already praising the return of German leadership to Europe and the 180-degree turn in German fiscal politics. French President Emmanuel Macron even wants to use this to convince the French parliament to allow more debts for his already indebted country. On the other side he also offered to expand the French nuclear umbrella over Europe and discuss what France can do to fill possible capacity gaps. Macron is now getting help from Brussels in his fight against the French parliament on the issue of money borrowing. Von der Leyen announced in response to the latest events the activation of the EU's national escape clause to allow more military spending while trying not to overstretch the EU's debt and deficit rules, aimed at preventing an economic crisis. Details on funding sources or whether the clause applies only to countries not meeting the NATO 2% GDP target remain unanswered. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic Donald Trump announced the U.S. decision to pause military aid for Ukraine and also withdrew the regular intelligence reports shared with the Ukrainian military about Russia.

Europe at the crossroads and the decisions of the European Council how to move forward

This was the political situation in which the European Council gathered in Brussels to discuss how the EU member states can finance the mentioned rearmament. They also debated what Europe can do to decrease the effects of the American withdrawal from Ukrainian support. The Council was also highly anticipated, because it would give a first impression how united Europe is and will act in the face of the new dramatically changed security situation.

In the case of the financing of the increased defence spending the EU sent a unified message through the planned reforms of the EU’s debt and deficit rules, which creates the potential of an increase up to 800 billion euros. The especially high indebted countries with little room for fiscal movement, Spain and France, complained that the 150 billion euros doled out as loans by the EU are not sufficient.

The Council also sent a strong message that they are “moving decisively towards a strong and more sovereign Europe of defence” and that Europe will support Ukraine with all its capacity. The absence of Hungary in this statement enabled the signatories to use a more determined language in the declaration and send a signal that Russia is isolated. Renew MEP Anna Stürgkh emphasised at a side event in the European Parliament that it is important for Europe to further reduce the import of Russian gas that still constitutes 20% of its gas imports.

While the European Council was debating, Donald Trump did not let the opportunity pass to gather media attention with another dividing statement from the other side of the Atlantic by saying “I think it's common sense, if they don't pay I'm not going to defend them.” By raising doubts if the U.S. would fulfil its NATO Article 5 duties to support its allies, it is getting even more urgent that Europe acts fast and decisively.

Implications of the latest developments

As European and American foreign policy goals appear to diverge, America’s disengagement from European security seems only a matter of time. Trump’s latest statements should be the final wake-up call for Europe. The only option is to develop own European capabilities and to take responsibility. This should not mean an end to transatlantic relations, rather it would allow both Europeans and Americans to pursue their own interests as well as their joint ones. It would be an opportunity to rebuild, strengthen and balance the transatlantic partnership.

Europe can be a serious power. It has the required assets to transform economic power, technological expertise and resources into hard power. In an interconnected world Europe must think holistically - not only considering military spending as crucial, but also interrelated aspects, such as a strong Defence Industrial Technology Base (DITB), which could spur reindustrialization in Europe, a robust medical sector, including sufficient hospital infrastructure and medical production capacities to ensure independence, as during the COVID-19 pandemic, diversified supply chains, and a better connection between military defense and society to strengthen societal resilience in the face of hybrid warfare.

European political leaders seem to have begun taking the required decisive action. This could have major implications for the future of the liberal international order. This year’s MSC report focused on the potential multipolarization of that order. If Europe reduces its dependence on the United States in security matters and becomes an autonomous regional and global actor, it would mark a significant shift. This would further a multipolar (liberal) international order and strengthen two powerful Western actors against authoritarian threats.

Tim Neubauer is a Fellow with FNF’s Security Hub.