Last week, Russian and US officials met in Saudi Arabia to discuss the future of Ukraine and European security, without Europeans present. On the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we asked members of our network: how should Europeans react and how can they make their voices heard?
______________________________________________________________________________
“Brussels and London should abandon their incremental “as long as it takes” approach and maximise pressure on Russia.”
Maria Shagina, Ukraine
Senior research fellow at IISS
“Trump’s rush to make a quick deal with Russia over the heads of Europeans (and Ukrainians) has left them in shock. With much talk of sanctions relief and business as usual, it is the EU and the UK that need to step up. Brussels and London should abandon their incremental “as long as it takes” approach and maximise pressure on Russia and support for Ukraine now.
Sanctions could play a key role in giving Europe a seat at the table. Despite the powerful reach of US sanctions, the Europeans have control over several chokepoints in the Russian economy. First, they can leverage their control over Russian sovereign assets. Together with the UK, the EU holds the lion’s share of the assets, which can be used to purchase weapons for Ukraine. Second, they can lower the oil price cap below $45 per barrel and tighten enforcement by applying pressure through geographic chokepoints. As the majority of Russian crude passes through European waters, London and Brussels can significantly curb the illicit oil trade. Finally, they can extend sanctions to LNG and nuclear power, the remaining lucrative sectors untouched by restrictions. Without meaningful sanctions pressure prior to negotiations, Russia would not concede, thereby destroying the chance to ensure a fair and enduring peace.”
______________________________________________________________________________
“The EU could nominate an experienced diplomat or former political leader, who is able to talk to Kyiv, Moscow, Washington, and other capitals, tasked with shaping a European contribution to a deal.”
Sergey Utkin, Russia
Former Head of Strategic Assessment Section, Primakov Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences
“Ukraine needs an agreement ending the war this year, with all the attrition and an ever-shakier prospect of further backing from the US. Europe will keep supporting Ukraine, but it also has to invest in a negotiated solution. Declarations of high moral principles do not constitute such an investment.
The EU could nominate an experienced diplomat/former political leader, who is able to talk to Kyiv, Moscow, Washington, and other capitals, tasked with shaping a European contribution to a deal. S/he would reach out to countries around the world that could contribute to a UN peacekeeping operation in Ukraine. Given Donald Trump’s attitude to the subject, any ‘Marshall plan’ for a post-war Ukraine may only come from Europe. Details of this and other elements of hypothetical agreements will matter a lot. Bringing attention to important details without destroying a feasible negotiated solution could also be up to European capitals. And since the US and Russia aim at a package deal that can go far beyond the ceasefire in Ukraine, the EU will have to reflect on elements of a parallel package that could include European priorities disregarded by this US administration – such as climate and human rights.”
______________________________________________________________________________
“There should be a radical increase in the defence budgets of all NATO member states.”
Dr Anatoliy Grytsenko, Ukraine
Former Defence Minister of Ukraine (2005-2007), Former Chairman of Parliamentary National Security & Defence Committee (2007-2012)
“NATO should be reformed. First, consensus should be replaced with qualified majority votes that will allow NATO to make the necessary decisions and make them faster, avoiding blocking or emasculating by one or a few member-states. Second, NATO should consider excluding those states that consistently pursue a pro-Russian policy and block important decisions of the Alliance. Third, a comprehensive audit of the defence industries of European countries should be conducted to be able to rapidly increase the production of weapons and ammunition in case of a war threat. Fourth, a review of all contracts and licenses for the supply of weapons (their components) and ammunition should be undertaken to allow the quick and barrier-free transfer of them to third countries (NATO members and partners) and employ them where necessary for the security of Europe. Fifth, there should be a radical (up to 3.5-4% of GDP) increase in the defence budgets of all member states.
Finally, there must be recognition – beyond words – that now, and in the foreseeable future, the Ukrainian army will be the first to defend Europe, and, therefore, under no circumstances can the inclusion of the Kremlin’s demand for a reduction of the Ukrainian army (below its permanent pre-invasion strength of 261,000, plus ready mobilisation reserve) and restrictions on the possession of long-range weapons in the “peace deal” be allowed.
In my view, such actions will strengthen the now amorphous NATO and enhance Europe’s role. Otherwise, the Alliance and Europe as a key player in the world may cease to exist.”
______________________________________________________________________________
“A united approach to Ukraine, aligned with Kyiv’s peace formula, is crucial to preventing the replacement of international law with power politics.”
Nadezhda Neynsky, Bulgaria
Former Foreign Minister, Politician, and Diplomat
“Europe must assert itself geopolitically and defend its strategic interests. While the Euro-Atlantic relationship remains crucial, it must evolve with a renewed partnership model. The US cannot form true strategic alliances with Russia or China due to opposing interests and deep mistrust.
Energy competition is central to this dynamic. The US seeks global energy dominance, but Russia, a direct competitor, and China, increasingly reliant on Russian energy, are not viable markets. Having sanctioned Russian energy, Europe faces choices beyond US gas, with potential new supply routes via Turkey and Qatar. Meanwhile, China’s rejection of the “Power of Siberia 2” pipeline increases Russia’s dependence on Chinese markets.
A US-Russia rapprochement would test China and Iran’s support for Russia in Ukraine and challenge their BRICS ambitions, particularly their push for an alternative banking system, which Washington strongly opposes.
Europe must respond by strengthening its security and defence architecture, ensuring sufficient financing, and rapidly implementing a robust European Defence Industrial Policy (EDIP). A united approach to Ukraine, aligned with Kyiv’s peace formula, is crucial to preventing the replacement of international law with power politics. Failure to act risks destabilising the democratic world and global order.”
______________________________________________________________________________
“Leadership matters. Now the time has come to show it.”
Carsten Sondergaard, Denmark
Former Ambassador to Russia
“It is not yet clear whether the Trump foreign policy initiatives are irreversible. At some point one should expect pushbacks in Congress and from Corporate America. European diplomacy should support those efforts.
There is a serious risk that Ukraine will be “thrown under the bus.” This would be a mistake of historic proportions. It is up to Europe to try to avoid it or mitigate the consequences.
However, Europe’s main problem is that it is not a relevant player. It talks a lot and carries a small stick.
So, what should Europe do:
First, prepare for the worst. Ramp up its defence budgets and capabilities. Europeans should be realistic and keep in mind that Europe’s security will be dependent on the US for many years.
Second, increase sanctions towards Russia. The Russian “frozen money” must now be spent in support of Ukraine. There has been plenty of time to handle the legal aspects.
Third, if the four Ukrainian regions illegally occupied by Russia won’t be able to return to Ukraine in the foreseeable future, Europe must never recognise their Russian status.
Bottom line: Leadership matters. Now the time has come to show it.”
______________________________________________________________________________
“Europeans should set a deadline for and accelerate Ukraine’s EU integration to demonstrate to Russia that Euro-Atlantic integration is irreversible.”
Liana Fix, Germany
Fellow for Europe, David Rockefeller Studies Program, Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
“It is unlikely that Europeans will still have a seat at the table at Trump’s negotiations. The more these talks resemble a normalisation of US-Russian relations instead of Ukraine negotiations, the less disappointed Europeans should be. But Europeans still have leverage that they can use towards Russia as well as the Trump administration, and to strengthen Ukraine’s position.
First, Europeans should seize all remaining Russian frozen assets and use these for long-term support of Ukraine (especially since only one Hungarian can send these assets back to Russia). Secondly, Europeans should set a deadline for and accelerate Ukraine’s EU integration to demonstrate to Russia that Euro-Atlantic integration is irreversible. Third, Europeans should develop options for a European mission in Ukraine and at the same time significantly increase their own defence spending. Only this will make them a credible actor against all the headwinds.”
______________________________________________________________________________
“Europeans should take care not to go too far in the other direction by overlooking their soft power. Diplomacy, development and trade are still vital to security.”
Jane Kinninmont, UK
Acting Director, European Leadership Network
“European leaders are confronting the need for a radical rethink of their entire model of security, as Trump turning on Zelensky has implications far beyond Ukraine. Vance’s Munich speech, which equated efforts to counter disinformation with censorship and “fear of your own people”, set out a basis for the US to call virtually any leader illegitimate.
The focus now is on rebuilding hard power, with higher defence spending and a revitalisation of the defence industrial base, for an era that seems likely to involve more threats from Russia and less US protection. But as Europeans worry that it has neglected hard power for too long, they should take care not to go too far in the other direction by overlooking their soft power. Diplomacy, development and trade are still vital to security.
Europe also needs to avoid being too inward-looking at a time of crisis. Around the world, many countries find it fairly normal for the US to be seen as unpredictable and overbearing. Other regions of the world, notably the Middle East, have been contending with a US that wants to “pivot to Asia” for about two decades. Hedging and multi-alignment are emerging as important strategies globally.”
The European Leadership Network itself as an institution holds no formal policy positions. The opinions articulated above represent the views of the authors rather than the European Leadership Network or its members. The ELN aims to encourage debates that will help develop Europe’s capacity to address the pressing foreign, defence, and security policy challenges of our time, to further its charitable purposes.
