Follow us on social

Von der Leyen, Zelensky, Costa

Cracks in European ‘unity’ on Ukraine

Dissenting voices expose the fact that not everyone is on the same page regarding negotiations, peacekeepers, and more

Analysis | Europe

The Trump administration's decision to first host direct talks with Russia in February has left Ukraine and its European backers wondering how long they will be left on the sidelines. Brussels, particularly, is trying to put on a unified front to promote its interests in Ukraine’s future.

But a flurry of statements and summits over the last few weeks shows that the EU, and Europe more generally, may be less “unified” on the subject than they had initially hoped to convey.

The inconclusive summit in London last week, which took place after the recent Trump-Zelensky spat in the White House, was followed by an emergency meeting of the EU in Brussels. Prior to that conclave, European leaders did their best to up the stakes. French President Emmanuel Macron darkly warned about the Russian threat not only to Ukraine, but also to France and Europe, in a dramatic TV address to the nation.

Meanwhile, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk vowed to win an arms race against Russia and predicted its “defeat,” much like the one suffered by the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Other European leaders issued like-minded statements.

Despite this rhetorical escalation, however, the summit in Brussels exposed the cracks in the European facade of unity. Indeed, the bloc failed to agree on a common position due to Hungary’s veto. That did not come as a surprise, as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has long advocated for a negotiated end to the war in Ukraine. He has forged close ties with President Donald Trump on this issue and on others.

Emboldened by the new U.S. position, Orban called on EU Council President Antonio Costa, the former prime minister of Portugal, to launch EU diplomatic talks with Moscow. Orban shared his conviction with Costa that “the EU — following the example of the U.S. — should enter into direct discussions with Russia on a ceasefire and a sustainable peace in Ukraine.”

Just days before the summit, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with his Hungarian counterpart Peter Szijjarto to emphasize the two countries’ “commitment to ending the war in Ukraine.” That is a meaningful step for Rubio who, just days earlier, canceled a scheduled meeting with Kaja Kallas, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, at the last minute. An unbridled Russia hawk, Kallas has repeatedly riled Trump administration officials with accusations of “appeasement” of Putin.

Speaking to the Washington Examiner after the meeting with Rubio, Szijjarto made it clear that on Ukraine, Budapest sees eye to eye with Washington, not Brussels.

Another noted representative of the European “anti-war party,” Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico similarly decried the European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen’s “peace through strength” strategy as “unrealistic,” positing that it serves “as a justification for continuing the war in Ukraine.” Echoing Trump’s line, Fico proposed to include “the necessity of an immediate ceasefire, regardless of the moment a final peace agreement is reached” in the summit’s decisions.

Even in more hawkish European countries, like France, there are influential dissenting voices. Right-wing opposition leader Marine Le Pen, a leading candidate to succeed Macron in 2027, dismissed the idea of sending French troops as peacekeepers to Ukraine, promoted by the president, as “sheer madness.”

Meanwhile, Henry Guaino, national security adviser to former conservative president Nicholas Sarkozy (2007-2012), called Macron to task for deliberately inflaming tensions with Russia for years, which he said led to the self-fulfilling prophecy of Russia now indeed becoming a threat. Former defense minister Hervé Morin, another high-ranking security official of the Sarkozy era, hammered Macron for over-dramatic rhetoric and fearmongering. Morin bluntly warned that peace will not be achieved by provoking Putin through media statements.

The lengths to which the European elites are prepared to go to snuff out alternative voices have been demonstrated in Romania. Indeed, Romania’s constitutional court annulled the first round results of its presidential elections on flimsy grounds: although the first round found anti-war candidate Călin Georgescu in the lead, he would subsequently be banned from the race altogether. The outgoing president, the staunchly Atlanticist Klaus Iohannis, implied that Georgescu’s success was a result of “Russian influence campaign,” a convenient bogeyman to disqualify popular challengers to the status-quo.

In the end, however, none of this seems to be helping to forge a robust, unified European position. The Brussels summit’s final document, signed by 26 member states (Slovakia was finally mollified into joining it after a reference to its gas dispute with Ukraine was added) — which, due to Budapest’s veto, cannot be considered the bloc’s official position— makes only oblique references to the new realities created by Trump’s initiatives.

It only acknowledges the “new momentum for negotiations that should lead to comprehensive, just and lasting peace.” Otherwise, the statement merely repeats that any ceasefire “can only take place as part of the process leading to a comprehensive peace agreement” and that “any such agreement needs to be accompanied by robust and credible security guarantees for Ukraine.”

But the document is devoid of details as to how exactly the European powers plan to implement these policies. The British-French plan to send European peacemakers to Ukraine was met with a distinct lack of enthusiasm by other major countries, notably Germany, Italy and even Poland. Their leaders correctly assessed that, in the absence of a U.S. backstop and Russia’s agreement to such a deployment — and Moscow has categorically ruled it out — the “peacekeepers” would in fact become combatants against Russia.

Moreover, Britain may be weighing the relative importance of Ukraine against its other, arguably more salient, priorities, such as a new trade deal with the U.S. Peter Mandelson, influential British ambassador in Washington and close confidant to UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, has said that the only chance to end the war is to narrow differences with the Trump administration, which insists on an immediate and indefinite ceasefire. That may leave Macron isolated in Europe.

It seems that the only thing the majority of European leaders could agree on is that Ukrainians should continue fighting. Lithuanian President Gintanas Nausėda said the quiet part out loud by arguing that Ukraine is winning “precious time” for Europe until it rearms and is ready to confront Russia.

The question is whether Kyiv will succumb to European encouragement to continue an unwinnable war when its representatives meet with the high-level U.S. team in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, or judge that further antagonizing Washington is not in Ukraine’s interests.


Top Image Credit: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, European Council President Antonio Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen attend a European Union leaders special summit to discuss Ukraine and European defence, in Brussels, Belgium March 6, 2025. REUTERS/Stephanie Lecocq
Analysis | Europe
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.