By Jorge Liboreiro
Ever since Donald Trump picked up the phone in February and called Vladimir Putin to launch immediate negotiations on how to end Russia’s war on Ukraine, Europeans have closed ranks in an unison chant: not without us.
Trump’s erratic diplomacy has stoked fears that the bloodiest armed conflict on European soil since World War II could be resolved without Europeans at the negotiating table. Maybe even without Ukrainians. The prospect of Trump and Putin slicing up the continent behind everybody’s back sent veritable chills down the spine in Brussels, Berlin, Paris, London and far beyond. Back in February, one could touch the anxiety among officials and diplomats.
The story is now repeating itself, though with some differences.
As you’ve read in the press, the US and Russia have reportedly prepared a 28-point plan to end the war. According to the details revealed by Axios and the FT, the plan contains highly disadvantageous terms for Ukraine, including giving up the entire Donbas, which Russian forces have failed to control in its entirety, and placing limitations on the size of the Ukrainian army. It’s an on-the-face capitulation that neither Kyiv nor its allies would be willing to tolerate. (Here’s all we know.)
Instead of panicking, like they did in February, Europeans have kept their composure. And it’s easy to see why: been there, done that. The past year has taught Europeans to take diplomatic initiatives stemming from the White House with a serious face but a grain (or kilo) of salt. Trump is notoriously unpredictable and dependent on whom he speaks to. If it’s Steve Witkoff, his envoy for the Middle East, he tends to embrace Russian views. If it’s Marco Rubio, his secretary of state, he tends to be more hawkish. Just last month, after Rubio sensed Moscow’s unwillingness to soften its maximalist demands, Trump imposed sanctions on Russia’s oil industry.
This time, Europeans know they need to play along with Trump’s diplomacy, notwithstanding its endless fluctuations, to make sure their views are taken into account. For example, when Trump last called for a ceasefire at the contact line, European leaders were quick to put out a joint statement endorsing the position, which Moscow, of course, rejected.
“Discussions should start with a ceasefire on the contact line that allows for negotiations on the question of territories and on the question of security guarantees,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said on Thursday before heading to a meeting.
“The only obstacle to such ordered discussions, so far, is Vladimir Putin.”
Swedish Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard said there were a “lot of talks about different talks” and made it clear “there can be no peace without Ukraine, and Europe has to be at the table.”
“Without the buy-in of Ukraine, you won’t get the support of the Europeans,” said her Dutch counterpart, David van Weel.
Marco Rubio, sensing the discontent, attempted to clarify: “A durable peace will require both sides to agree to difficult but necessary concessions,” he said. “That is why we are and will continue to develop a list of potential ideas for ending this war based on input from both sides of this conflict.”
However, there’s one awkward question that remains unanswered: Why does this keep happening?
After all, the EU is the largest donor to Ukraine, deploying billions in assistance to sustain the budget, the armed forces and the energy system. The EU has granted candidate status to Ukraine, built deep links with its defence industry and welcomed four million refugees, many of whom are permanently settled by now. What happens in Ukraine will have a lasting effect on the entire bloc.
And yet, despite the enormous stakes at play, the EU still struggles to have a reliable seat at the table. Sometimes, it does. In August, a high-profile delegation of European leaders accompanied Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a crucial visit to the White House. In a way, it was a validation of the arduous efforts to influence Trump’s thinking. But other times, like this week, it doesn’t. It’s left with no choice but to catch up with things through the press.
Should something change? High Representative Kaja Kallas doesn’t think so. For her, there’s only one viable plan, and it just has two points: support for Ukraine and pressure on Russia.
“We focus on our approach,” she said. “For any peace plan to work, it needs Ukrainians and Europeans to agree.”
| 
