Encouragingly, and with the full spirit of the entente cordiale speeding them on, the French president and the British prime minister will be delivering much the same message to Donald Trump when he makes time for them at the White House this week.
For all the complexities of the situation, Emmanuel Macron – and, on Thursday, Sir Keir Starmer – will say something very simple and straightforward to the president: Ukraine must have a seat at the negotiating table. The argument, which should be irrefutable, is that there can be no lasting peace in Ukraine without Ukraine.
If the two men are fortunate, the president of the United States will listen to them, offer something in the way of a promise to consult Volodymyr Zelensky – and not lose his temper. If Mr Macron and Sir Keir find their coordinated diplomatic efforts making further, unexpected progress, then they might even get what Sir Keir calls a “backstop” American security guarantee for Ukraine’s new de facto border with Russia, with some restitution of Ukrainian lands.
Somewhere in this mix will fall a minerals deal on American exploitation of Ukraine’s natural resources (at least the ones outside Russia’s control) – after the deputy Ukrainian prime minister tweeted (and then briefly untweeted) the dramatic news that her country was about to sign a gigantic minerals deal with the Trump administration.
There will also be a form of words on Ukraine’s status in relation to Nato and the European Union.
It is obviously worth a try – and however miserable such a denouement would be, it would be preferable to the kind of punishing Carthaginian settlement that President Putin and President Trump appear to be plotting.
However, the signs from the White House are not promising. President Trump has not yet chosen to belittle the British and French leaders with insulting nicknames and open contempt. In fact, he seems to like Sir Keir, at least. But he’s not impressed, either, remarking that the pair “haven’t done anything” to end the war in Ukraine. As for President Zelensky having a seat at the table, Mr Trump opines that he has “no cards” and “I don’t think he’s very important to be in meetings”.
Now, though, a new leader has suddenly emerged with a rather more clear-sighted perspective. The likely next chancellor of Germany has recognised what has become all too depressingly apparent in the last week: America has switched sides.
Chancellor-designate Friedrich Merz is perfectly candid about the catastrophe that is befalling the free world. He has “absolutely no illusions“ about Mr Trump, who “pretty much no longer cares about the fate of Europe…” Instead, he urges “independence” from the US.
It’s such a break with the geopolitics of the past 80 years that many, understandably enough, are unable or unwilling to come to terms with the changed reality. Yet Merz is entirely right. Even if Nato continues in existence, there can be no real certainty that the Americans would automatically and unconditionally honour their obligations under Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty. That famously declares that “an attack on one is an attack on all” and was last activated by allies to assist the United States after the 9/11 attacks.
Would that be reciprocated now? Would President Trump threaten his friend Vladimir Putin with nuclear weapons just because Russian troops have made an incursion into Estonia? Would America fight to save Latvia? Bulgaria? Germany? How much would the bill from Washington be?
Things are, after all, transactional these days. The era is over when, as John F Kennedy put it, the United States “shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty”. These days, it’s the victims of aggression who are told to bear such burdens.
Lest anyone were under any such illusions, in his Valentine’s Day speech, vice-president JD Vance brutally told Europe that the US does not share its values any longer. The US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, also told European allies that America’s priorities lie elsewhere. It is not that Europe has drifted from America, but simply that America now favours Russia and echoes its propaganda. Mr Trump is a Russian ally, if not an asset.
Mr Merz is right to call for a Europe more able to defend itself and to take control of its defences. There is an emerging consensus to that effect. The continent has no choice; the geopolitical decision was made for it when Americans decided to put Mr Trump back in the White House.
Europe is vastly wealthier than Russia, it has the funds and the industrial resources to defend itself – if it wants to. In the short run, it could seize frozen Russian assets of about £300bn to prevent a Ukrainian collapse and to fund its reconstruction.
The French and British possess nuclear weapons. Ukraine could become a member of a new European defence and collective security pact – and a considerable asset. Combined, even the denuded armies, air forces and navies of the European powers would be formidable.
In the longer run, a coordinated defence structure to succeed Nato, with the necessary resources, will mean painful decisions about Europe’s welfare states and levels of personal consumption – guns, not butter. It is an unfamiliar situation, not seen since the end of the Cold War.
Europe itself is going to have to pay a price and bear some burdens if it wishes to stay free. Has it the resolve to unite and succeed?
