Just days after Trump declared Ukraine “not peace-ready” following a frosty White House meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, European leaders gathered in an extraordinary Sunday meeting, signaling their determination to chart their own course in the potential peace talks between Kyiv and Moscow.
The 2 March summit brought together 19 European leaders, including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, European Council President Antonio Costa, and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg — all scrambling to salvage what’s left of Western unity on Ukraine.
The summit, sparked by European concerns over the Trump administration’s newfound proximity to Moscow, delivered key commitments, including increased defense spending as well as a hefty £2.2 billion ($2.84 billion) loan for Ukraine and a from Britain.
However, its true significance lies in shaping a European framework for potential peace talks, balancing pressure on Moscow with the reality of shifting political dynamics in Washington.
Yet it was UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and France’s President Emmanuel Macron who stole the spotlight, leading Europe’s unified stance ahead of the 6 March meeting in Brussels, where Ukraine’s security guarantees and a major defense investment boost are set to dominate the agenda.
While the contours of Europe’s approach are still taking shape, Euromaidan Press turned to experts to break down what the London declarations mean for Ukraine’s future — and whether the early signs of Europe’s emerging peace strategy can thrive without US backing.
Four pillars of European solidarity
At the London meeting, UK Prime Minister Starmer rolled out a four-point roadmap, supported by European leaders, to fortify Ukraine’s position ahead of potential peace talks with Russia. As Starmer emphasized, the aim is to ensure Ukraine is poised to negotiate from a position of strength when dialogue with the Kremlin eventually kicks off.
“We have to put Ukraine in a position of strength,” said Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, stating the goal to turn Ukraine into “a steel porcupine indigestible for potential invaders.”
The Macron-Starmer suggestion, which started taking shape in response to Trump’s push for solo peace with no Ukraine and Europe at the table, rests on four key priorities:
- Providing ongoing military aid to Ukraine and intensifying economic pressure on Russia for as long as the war continues
- Securing Ukraine’s sovereignty in peace talks, with Kyiv guaranteed a seat at the table
- Creating European peacekeeping forces to prevent any future Russian invasions after the finalizing the peace deal with Moscow
- Forming a “coalition of the willing” to protect Ukraine and maintain peace in the country.
However, despite the alleged consensus among summit leaders in London, the Macron-Starmer ideas have faced rising skepticism about whether they can be implemented without the US’ backing, whose very turn away from Europe brought them to life.
A ceasefire that Moscow will never accept
The most hotly debated proposal from the summit came from French President Emmanuel Macron, who floated the idea of a month-long ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia. His plan called for a pause on airstrikes, naval battles, and energy attacks to give Ukraine a stronger hand in future peace talks with the Kremlin.
“The question is how we will use this time to try to reach an acceptable ceasefire with negotiations that will last several weeks and then with the deployment of forces,” Macron told Le Figaro.
However, his proposal for a short-term partial ceasefire excluded ground fighting, despite it being the most intense front. The French president dismissed the notion, highlighting that Ukraine’s vast 800-mile frontline is incredibly challenging to manage, and “it would be very difficult to verify whether the front line is being respected,” and refrained from explaining how compliance would be monitored, even for the areas covered by the ceasefire.
Macron also made it clear that European troops wouldn’t be sent to Ukraine to enforce the ceasefire — this move would only be considered after a final peace deal with Russia.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot backed the limited ceasefire proposal, suggesting that a focus on air, sea, and energy infrastructure would test Putin’s sincerity – a likely pushback against recent claims from the Trump administration that Zelenskyy was uninterested in peace, amid tense White House talks and Trump’s repeated insistence that Putin was seeking a resolution.
“Such a truce would allow us to determine whether Putin is acting in good faith when he commits to a truce. And that’s when real peace negotiations could start,” Barrot said.
Macron further elaborated on the plan, stressing that the truce would provide time to negotiate security guarantees, territorial issues, and reconstruction, claiming that at the end of the ceasefire’s action, “we will have a peace treaty and a peace agreement.”
However, just a day later, British Defence Minister Luke Pollard shot down the idea, saying London hadn’t agreed to a one-month ceasefire in Ukraine, a proposal French President Macron had mentioned the night before, calling it “not a plan we currently recognize.”
Experts have also raised concerns about the feasibility of such a short ceasefire. Mykhailo Samus, a defense expert and Director at the New Geopolitics Research Network, stresses that any ceasefire would need to carefully consider the risks involved in halting the action while Kyiv remains on the defensive.
“It is Russia that should be talking about this because [Ukraine] did not start this war,” he says. “We cannot cease fire because we are defending ourselves.”
Colonel Oleksandr Saienko, a military analyst at Ukraine’s Independent Anti-Corruption Commission, agrees that even a brief truce would require careful consideration to ensure Ukraine’s interests were fully protected.
“It needs to be carefully considered, with Ukraine’s interests fully accounted for,” he says. “Because we understand that any ceasefire for a month would provide Russia with an opportunity to regroup and restore its offensive capabilities.”
In recent months, Kyiv’s military position has grown more fragile, with Russian forces making small but steady advances — especially in Russia’s Kursk Oblast, where Ukraine has lost nearly two-thirds of its gains since the August 2024 incursion.
As Trump trades US aid for Putin peace, Ukraine’s ammo-starved troops split over Kursk future
Russian assaults have intensified along the front – hitting key battlegrounds like Pokrovsk and Toretsk — further straining Ukraine’s defenses and depleting ammunition supplies, a challenge aggravated by the looming risk of reduced US aid.
“Russia is not in a state where its front is collapsing or its soldiers are chaotically fleeing,” Oleksandr Saienko says. “Therefore, it can afford to throw its human resources into destruction to gain advantages in diplomatic negotiations.”
He argues that in these circumstances, Moscow is expected to block any ceasefire and impose maximal demands, including full control over Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk oblasts along their administrative borders. The future of Kharkiv and Odesa oblasts remains unclear, with the Kremlin possibly pushing for control over these regions in the latest round of peace talks.
“If Ukraine agrees to a temporary ceasefire, they would say, ‘Fine, hand over all the territories we have listed, and then we will consider whether to start this one-month truce,’” Saienko adds. “This will be Russia’s position — and it’s absolutely unacceptable to Ukraine.”
In this light, Macron’s ceasefire proposal entirely hinges not on European unity, but on Moscow’s cooperation. As Russia gains ground militarily, the Kremlin’s approval can only be secured by the West’s ability to apply pressure — something increasingly unlikely as the US softens its stance, weakening leverage over Russia.
“Europe currently has no significant leverage, if we’re being realistic. Europe can’t impose a trade embargo on Russia because their efforts would be insufficient without American support,” Mykhailo Samus says.
What Europe’s “coalition of the willing” is really prepared to risk?
The core of Macron and Starmer’s peace suggestions, which took center stage at the London meeting, is a “coalition of the willing” that would send European peacekeepers to Ukraine to oversee the peace deal and deter future Russian attacks. UK Prime Minister Starmer has signaled the UK’s readiness to deploy “boots on the ground and planes in the air.”
The push for peacekeepers in Ukraine got revived after President Zelenskyy that ensuring peace in Ukraine would require 100,000 peacekeepers on 13 February, just two days after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine.
At an emergency EU leaders’ meeting in Paris on 17 February, sparked after the US announced the start of peace talks with Russia without Ukraine or Europe at the table, Macron proposed positioning European peacekeepers behind a future demarcation line in Ukraine rather than directly on the frontlines — a possibility Poland, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Bulgaria ruled out in the following days.
Over the next weeks, the “coalition of the willing” proposal gained traction, with Britain and France at the forefront. According to The Washington Post, the plan sought to establish a “reassurance force” of up to 30,000 troops from European nations and Canada to safeguard Ukraine’s airports and critical infrastructure.
At the London meeting, Starmer revealed that several countries had pledged to join the peacekeeping mission but added that each nation would announce its involvement individually.
Later, Zelenskyy stated that even if Europe succeeds at arranging the peacekeeping force, it would still need US support, particularly in “air defense and intelligence.” The crucial reliance of Europe’s peace draft on the US’ backing was further confirmed by Starmer’s pledge to present the finalized peace proposal to the Trump administration after coordinating with Ukraine, France, and “several other countries.”
However, this isn’t the only hurdle the “coalition of the willing” faces in becoming reality. The experts point out that international law requires the approval of both sides of the conflict before peacekeepers can be deployed.
“If peacekeepers arrive unilaterally, Russia will not recognize them. It has already stated that it does not accept any peacekeeping forces from France, the UK, or Germany, viewing their presence as interference in the conflict,” Oleksandr Saienko says.
The expert notes that even if Russia agrees to European peacekeepers in Ukraine, as a party to the conflict, it could dictate their roles and powers, giving Moscow leverage to undermine their ability to enforce peace.
“We’ve seen similar peacekeeping missions in Transnistria and Georgia, and they had no real impact on the situation,” he says.
Mykhailo Samus adds that even if peacekeepers are deployed, they would not be positioned directly between Ukrainian and Russian forces but instead be stationed away from the front lines, serving as international observers and using technical means to monitor the ceasefire.
He cautions that if Russia were to initiate further aggression, these peacekeepers would unlikely engage in combat with Russian forces.
“Otherwise, it means Europe would have to enter into direct war with Russia, which is not a very popular political stance in any European country,” he concludes.
Russia’s last “Ukraine peace deal” led to Europe’s biggest war since WWII. Here’s why this one could be worse.
The era of shifting alliances?
While the London meeting was a crucial step in solidifying Europe’s unified stance on security and peace talks for Ukraine, experts warn its effects won’t be immediate. However, Europe still has the ability to back Ukraine in future negotiations beyond the summit’s declarations.
“There are many options,” Oleksandr Saienko says. “For example, one could be deploying training units within Ukraine instead of abroad.”
However, he adds that the key takeaway from the meeting is Europe’s increasing unity on security. This marks the end of Europe’s decade-long dependence on US military power, as Europe is now forced to recalibrate its security strategy in response to the Russian threat, aligning its priorities with Ukraine’s defense.
“Our [Ukraine’s] task now is to identify our true allies,” the expert continues. “We don’t need all European countries involved — it could lead to endless negotiations. But we do have real allies.”
With the US stepping back, Ukraine has a chance to deepen defense ties with key allies directly threatened by Russia, such as the Baltic states, the Nordics, and Poland, as well as France and Spain, that have consistently supported Kyiv but often fly under the radar.
“Now Ukraine needs to truly understand what it wants from European allies,” he says.
