European leaders meeting in Paris last week hailed a milestone: 26 countries pledging military support to secure a future peace in Ukraine, with the United States floated as a potential backstop.
The optics were meant to show momentum and unity. But on the ground, peace looks no closer, as Russia’s aerial attack on Kyiv’s government buildings last weekend made clear.
To some observers, the summit was less a breakthrough than a performance. Talking up post-war security guarantees allowed European leaders to project initiative to Washington and to signal solidarity at home — all without paying the political price of doing more now.
The strategy has taken on new urgency since the summit between US President Donald Trump and Russia’s Vladimir Putin in Alaska last month, which ended without a ceasefire and was widely seen as a diplomatic win for Putin. Trump, meanwhile, has since softened his stance and edged closer to Russia’s framing of the conflict.
That disconnect is fuelling pushback, especially from those who argue that Europe should be doing more to shape the war’s outcome now.
“Yes, it was a step forward,” Marko Mihkelson, chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the Estonian Parliament, told The Parliament of the Paris summit. “But the focus right now should be not on what to do after the war but how to bring this war to an end.”
Mihkelson dismissed the message to Moscow as “weak,” arguing that European countries should “show strength and help Ukraine win this war,” rather than debate how to secure a peace that does not yet exist.
Macron touts pledges as leaders warn of limits
At a press conference outside the Elysee Palace on Thursday, flanked by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that 26 nations were prepared to back security guarantees for Ukraine by land, sea, and air after a peace agreement is signed, but emphasised that no troops would be deployed to frontlines. France, Britain, Estonia and Lithuania have said they are ready to send ground forces once a deal is reached, with European military experts over the past month discussing estimates ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 troops needed.
The Trump administration has voiced support for European-led guarantees, but the details remain unclear. After Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities over the weekend, Trump said that he was ready to target Moscow with more punishing sanctions.
Critics, however, argue that debating post-war arrangements while the conflict rages risks dodging harder choices. Mihkelson and other analysts point to levers European leaders have so far resisted, regardless of American involvement. One would be to seize the more than €200 billion in Russian assets frozen in European banks, an option Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot rejected on Friday as harmful to Europe’s economy and “not an option.”
Another would be to deploy troops in Ukraine before a peace deal. Juraj Majcin, a defence analyst at the European Policy Centre, said forces could be stationed in cities like Kyiv or Odessa, freeing up Ukrainians to fight at the frontlines. He added that European troops could also take on logistical roles even from NATO territory.
“There are many more things we can be doing, but there’s no political appetite to do those things,” said Majcin, citing both asset seizure and troop deployments.
Europe split on troop deployments despite security pledges
But calls to station European troops in Ukraine before a peace deal is signed might run headlong into political reality. While European leaders are willing to talk about post-war guarantees, many remain resistant to committing ground troops — whether to pressure Moscow into peace or police it afterward.
Last week, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius criticised comments from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen that “precise plans” were being drawn up for troop deployments in Ukraine. Instead, Pistorius stressed the lack of competency at the EU-level for troop deployments, while noting that Germany may be too stretched militarily to contribute ground forces.
Domestic politics adds another potential brake. An August poll by the Forsa Institute found that only 49% of Germans support sending peacekeeping forces after a deal, while in Italy, support was only 35% back in April. Other key countries bordering Ukraine, such as Poland, have also expressed an unwillingness to send troops to Ukraine — including in the aftermath of the war. Even if Europe wanted to act, Majcin noted, coordination could prove difficult because NATO’s command and control structures run through the US.
The Kremlin has also made its red lines clear. After the Paris summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that any Western troops deployed during the war would be treated as “legitimate targets,” adding that there would be no reason for foreign soldiers to remain once peace is established — effectively rejecting both pre- and post-war deployments.
For that reason, even politicians who favour more European support for Ukraine have stressed boosting economic and military aid first, a safe way to enforce Ukraine’s defences without risking direct confrontation with Russia. That would turn Ukraine, in the words of German diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger, into a “porcupine” that could guarantee the country’s survival and European security — a comment he made on social media the day after the Paris meeting.
Posturing or preparation? Europe’s balancing act
With the Trump administration planning to pull more military assets out of Europe — including from the critical Baltics region — the “coalition of the willing” summits have become Europe’s attempt to show it can lead on security and defence without the US.
“This present virtual exercise is primarily done to show Trump that Europe is ready with its homework,” said Jan Balliauw, a senior associate fellow at the Egmont Institute. “And to keep him on the European side and convince him to put more pressure on Putin.”
For Majcin, the inclusion of Ukraine in these talks is less about shaping the battlefield today than about sending signals across the Atlantic. By putting Kyiv at the centre of post-war planning, Europeans hope to keep Ukraine, and their own security concerns, on Washington’s radar. “It’s posturing,” said Majcin. “But posturing is important for deterrence.”
And yet the strategy is not without irony. Putin justified his initial invasion of Ukraine in part by rejecting NATO troops in Ukraine. Now, as Balliauw noted, Europeans are floating security guarantees that look strikingly similar. For the Kremlin, those guarantees could only be acceptable if Russia were losing — and as recent strikes on Kyiv underline, that moment is still far off.
“It is all a question of political will and what politicians are willing to sell to their voters,“ said Balliauw. “Europe says that Ukraine is existential for the future of Europe, but Europe appears not ready to pay a high price for that.”
Sign up to The Parliament's weekly newsletter
Every Friday our editorial team goes behind the headlines to offer insight and analysis on the key stories driving the EU agenda. Subscribe for free here.