Paris Summit Exposes Europe’s Deep Divisions on Ukraine
The Paris summit was intended to project European strength and unity, but instead, it highlighted the continent’s ongoing struggle to present a cohesive and credible security strategy.
The February 17, 2025, Paris summit, called by French President Emmanuel Macron, was meant to assert European leadership on security in response to the ongoing war in Ukraine. Instead, it laid bare deep divisions among European leaders regarding military support, peacekeeping efforts, and strategic autonomy. The over-reliance on U.S. military power, along with complex political and logistical hurdles, has made it challenging for Europe to develop a clear and independent strategy. This article delves into the key issues discussed at the summit, the difficulties of European military commitments, and the broader implications for the future of European security.
Disunity in European Strategy
Rather than demonstrating cohesion, the Paris summit highlighted how fractured Europe remains in its approach to Ukraine’s security. While Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer proposed the idea of European ground troops, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk dismissed such discussions outright. Scholz referred to the idea as “completely premature,” emphasizing that any such action would require broader NATO coordination and clearer objectives. Tusk, on the other hand, made it clear that Poland had no intention of sending troops, citing concerns over the political ramifications and potential escalation of the conflict. Instead, Poland opted to provide logistical and political backing for those who might choose to engage directly.
At the heart of the issue is the uncertainty about what a European military presence in Ukraine would actually accomplish. Would it function as a deterrent force against Russia, aiming to dissuade further aggression? Would it serve as a means of providing long-term security guarantees to Ukraine, signaling a deeper European commitment? Or would it act as a traditional peacekeeping force, monitoring a potential ceasefire and ensuring compliance? Each of these roles presents unique challenges. Peacekeeping usually requires impartiality—a near-impossible condition given that European nations have already supplied Ukraine with arms and training, making their neutrality highly questionable. Additionally, a peacekeeping force without clear mandates or the consent of all parties risks being ineffective or, worse, provoking further hostilities.
Moreover, without U.S. support, any European deployment would likely lack the deterrence necessary to prevent Russian aggression. Russia has repeatedly stated its opposition to Western military presence in Ukraine and would likely perceive such a deployment as a provocation, potentially escalating hostilities rather than de-escalating them. The lack of air cover, intelligence-sharing, and defense production further undermines the credibility of a European force acting independently. Given these factors, European leaders remain divided on whether military intervention would provide a net security benefit or merely exacerbate the already fragile situation.
The Limits of a European Military Deployment
Europe’s ability to deploy a significant force in Ukraine is constrained by a combination of strategic, logistical, and operational challenges. The debate has ranged from sending a symbolic ‘tripwire’ force to deploying fully equipped combat brigades, but sustaining a meaningful military presence over the long term would be a serious challenge. Any deployment would require extensive coordination among European nations, clear strategic objectives, and a robust logistical framework to support long-term operations.
For instance, the UK could likely muster a brigade of 4,000–5,000 troops, but doing so would strain its already-limited military resources and impact its ability to meet NATO commitments elsewhere. The British Army’s 3rd Division, which would likely be deployed, is still undergoing restructuring and may not be fully prepared for an extended engagement. France, the only other major European military power actively considering troop deployment, faces similar constraints. French military planners would need to balance such a commitment against their existing engagements.
Moreover, any European force would confront substantial operational risks. Russia may currently have between 500,000 and 700,000 troops engaged in Ukraine, meaning that any Western deployment would require significant air defenses, surveillance, and logistical support to counter Russian firepower. Without U.S. participation, this would be a daunting task. European forces would also need to ensure interoperability between different national contingents, particularly in terms of communication systems, command structures, and rules of engagement. Additionally, European militaries lack a well-established joint command structure capable of leading a high-intensity operation independently. Without a central command overseeing operations, any deployment risks inefficiency, miscommunication, and vulnerability to Russian countermeasures.
The viability of a European-led military presence in Ukraine hinges on its credibility as a deterrent force, and without a robust and well-supported military commitment, such a force risks being more symbolic than effective.
Strategic Autonomy or Continued Dependence?
Macron has long pushed for European strategic autonomy, arguing that Europe should develop its own defense industrial base rather than depending on American military capabilities. His vision extends beyond mere procurement; Macron envisions a fully integrated European defense framework where countries pool resources, streamline production, and reduce dependency on external suppliers. However, progress toward European defense integration has been slow due to competing national interests, industrial protectionism, and the longstanding reliance on U.S. technology and military infrastructure. Moreover, differing threat perceptions among EU member states have complicated efforts to develop a cohesive military doctrine.
The financial implications of increased defense spending further complicate matters. While countries like Poland have committed to raising their defense budgets, others struggle to justify similar expenditures to their citizens, particularly in the face of economic stagnation and pressing domestic concerns. In the UK, for example, boosting military spending without increasing taxes or cutting social programs presents a difficult political dilemma, given public resistance to austerity measures. Furthermore, discrepancies in procurement policies, national defense strategies, and existing military-industrial partnerships further hinder a collective European approach.
As a result, there is a genuine risk that Europe’s defense ambitions will remain largely rhetorical rather than materializing into significant military capabilities. Without a strong and unified defense policy, Europe risks continued reliance on American military assets, raising concerns about its long-term strategic independence in an increasingly volatile global landscape.
Europe’s Passive and Reactive Security Stance
Despite growing calls for strategic autonomy, Europe continues to rely heavily on the U.S. for its security. Under the Trump administration, Washington’s involvement with Ukraine shifted, focusing on peace negotiations and a cautious approach to military aid, with U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ruling out American troop deployments. Furthermore, NATO’s Article V protections do not extend to Ukraine, meaning European leaders cannot rely on the United States as a guaranteed deterrent against Russian aggression if their troops come under attack on Ukrainian soil. This reality forces European nations to restrain themselves.
Compounding the issue, European leaders have been excluded from early U.S.-Russia negotiations, which have taken place in Saudi Arabia without their participation. This diplomatic sidelining underscores Europe's limited influence over the trajectory of the Ukraine conflict and highlights a growing divide between American and European strategic interests. Instead of playing a proactive role, European nations have largely been reacting to evolving U.S. policies, often struggling to formulate a unified and coherent response. This reactive posture has exposed critical gaps in Europe’s ability to coordinate independent security measures, making it difficult to assert itself as a credible force in global diplomacy and conflict resolution.
Conclusion: A Fractured Response with Uncertain Prospects
The Paris summit was intended to project European strength and unity, but instead, it highlighted the continent’s ongoing struggle to present a cohesive and credible security strategy. The lack of agreement on troop deployments, the continued reliance on U.S. military power, and the political constraints on defense spending all point to a Europe that is unprepared to act independently. While increased defense investments and efforts to boost military production could strengthen Europe’s security role in the long run, the immediate roadblocks of coordination, credibility, and strategic autonomy remain unsolved. Without a clear and actionable plan, Europe risks making ambitious commitments it cannot uphold—leaving its security policies vulnerable to shifting political winds and external pressures.
