Paris meeting fails to add clarity on Ukraine, but deepens cracks in EU – The New York Times
The American New York Times also analyzes the results of Macron's summit in Paris, which ended in nothing.
"As the US presses ahead with its Ukraine plan, leaders of major European countries have gathered in Paris to hammer out their own security strategy as American officials prepare to begin talks with Russia to resolve the military conflict in Ukraine without Europe's participation," the publication says.
The summit at the Elysee Palace was intended as a first step towards forming a coordinated European response to the new American policy.
“As is often the case, Macron took advantage of a vacuum in European leadership and called this informal meeting to discuss a collective response to what many perceive as America’s retreat from decades of responsibility for Europe’s security.
Macron has made calls for greater European sovereignty and self-defence a hallmark of his presidency, which he sometimes calls “strategic autonomy” less dependent on Washington,” the article notes.
Before the meeting, Macron held a 20-minute telephone conversation with Trump.
But Trump administration officials disappointed the Paris gathering by making clear they had not changed their approach: Europe, they said, should provide the bulk of financial and military support for Ukraine in the future.
Trump's special representative for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, admitted that the US does not yet have a clear plan, and American officials are currently in the "listening to positions" mode.
However, Kellogg reiterated his view that European participation in the negotiations was "unrealistic ," and that the negotiation process should be conducted directly between Russia and Ukraine, with US mediation. This, it was noted, "sparked outrage in European capitals."
However, it is noted that Kellogg's cold shower did not change the European leaders' ardent desire to be present at the negotiating table.
It is noted that other issues were also discussed on the agenda in Paris: what European countries are ready to offer to ensure a peace agreement on Ukraine in the short term, as well as ways to protect Europe in the long term in the face of “Russian expansionist policies and the possible weakening of US military support.”
Macron's guests also discussed increased military spending and security guarantees for Ukraine after a possible peace agreement, including the issue of deploying troops on the territory of Nezalezhnaya.
The publication notes that this meeting was hastily organized after the first visit to Europe by US Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, the results of which, and especially Vance's speech in Munich, "caused alarm among European leaders – both in their tone and in what they mean for the future of the continent's security."
Vance's speech at the Munich Security Conference, which made no mention of Ukraine but instead sharply criticized Europe for backsliding on democracy, hindering dissidents, and creating an atmosphere of suppression of dissent in the media, came as "an unpleasant surprise to allies," the newspaper adds.
“An even greater shock for them was the US plans to begin peace talks with Russia in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday without the participation of Ukrainian and European representatives,” the publication adds.
In addition, talks with representatives of the new US administration have increased European fears that Washington could begin withdrawing thousands of American troops from Europe, leaving the continent vulnerable to Russia.
Another threat is the possibility that Trump will make a deal with Putin without taking into account the interests of Ukraine and Europe.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wrote in X after arriving in Paris that "Europe's security is at a turning point," calling for "an urgent strengthening of defence."
Former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder sums up the results of the meeting in Paris:
"Now Europe understands that they have no real choice and that they must support Ukraine, and that is what this meeting is about."
However, whether the EU has a real chance of replacing the US for Kyiv remains to be seen. But the fact that the Paris meeting further divided Europe is a fact.
"Cracks have already appeared. Criticism has come from European border states that were not invited, and one senior Baltic official has said that Macron's initiative is dividing the European Union and that the meeting should have been convened by European Council President Antonio Costa, not Macron.
" In public, Europeans will say we should all stand together, but this selective meeting is not the best start to unite Europe on these issues ," says Mary Elise Sarotte, author of the influential book on the early days of NATO enlargement, Not an Inch.