Can Europe ensure peace in Ukraine without the US?

Britain and France are trying, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, to develop a peace plan to end the fighting in his country, following his "disastrous" White House meeting with Donald Trump.

However, the initiative announced by Keir Starmer on Sunday raises questions about whether peace is possible and on what terms, in the face of continued Russian hostility and uncertain US intentions, according to an analysis published in The Guardian, the Telegraph reports.

Is peace achievable in the current climate?

Although Ukraine and Russia say they want an end to the war, the countries remain far from agreement.

The Kremlin still wants to dominate Ukraine, conquer large amounts of territory, and ensure that Kiev does not join NATO.

Ukraine, meanwhile, is fighting for its survival – and to create a secure independent future within the Western sphere.

"My view is that what Russia wants, the US cannot deliver and the Ukrainians will not accept it," says Sir Lawrence Freedman, an emeritus professor at King's College London.

Although Ukraine has shown that it can accept a de facto partition roughly along the current front lines, it will almost certainly want to fight – rather than accept harsher terms.

Meanwhile, most Ukrainians do not want to fall under the Russian sphere of influence, and the desire to resist Russian domination remains widespread throughout Ukrainian society.

What happens if the US abandons Ukraine?

Friday's fiasco at the White House has left diplomatic relations between the US and Ukraine damaged, raising the question of whether the US would intervene to cut off all future military aid to Kiev.

Although nearly $4 billion in military aid remains undistributed, from approvals given during the previous Biden administration, it was suggested on Friday that "they could be cut immediately."

The halt to US military aid would make the battlefield situation more difficult for Ukraine, although it would take time to take effect.

Ukrainian defense officials estimate that about 20% of the military equipment used in the war comes from the US (plus about 55% from Ukraine and 25% from Europe), although it is acknowledged that 20% is among the most capable – and the most difficult to replace from Europe or elsewhere.

But while Ukraine remains largely on the defensive, Russian advances into Ukraine were slow throughout 2024 and came with high casualty rates, often more than 1000 killed and wounded per day.

No significant cities were taken, and it would take Moscow another two years to conquer the rest of the Donetsk region in the east, at the rate of progress last year, according to the Institute for the Study of War.

Can Europe close the US military support gap?

It is difficult to see how Europe can replace everything the US offers, which means that Ukraine's military situation will remain difficult.

Rachel Ellehuus, director general of the Royal United Services Institute, says the US contribution is particularly important in three areas: air defence, where there are only limited European alternatives to Patriot systems; longer-range ballistic missiles, with Germany having refused to deliver Taurus missiles and the Franco-British Storm Shadow missiles in short supply; and, thirdly, satellite communications, where Elon Musk's Starlink remains critical on the front lines.

There is also the issue of cost. So far, the US has provided $33.8 billion in weapons and ammunition and has offered Kiev funds for another $33.2 billion to buy US-made weapons.

European military aid has been at an almost identical monetary level, at 62 billion euros according to the University of Kiel in Germany, meaning donations would need to double to fully fill the gap.

That would be a significant increase, leading to new suggestions that some of Russia's $300 billion in frozen central bank assets should be used to help finance Ukraine's war effort, although it is unclear whether it is legally possible to do so.

Can Europe guarantee peace in Ukraine without the US?

Although there have been discussions about creating a European-led “security force” to help guarantee peace in Ukraine, this would require at least a ceasefire.

Russia has already said it is against NATO member countries providing peacekeepers, but while it may not be able to exercise a veto over territory it does not control, its opposition would leave European troops in the country in a dangerous position.

Britain had "pushed" for the US to provide "support" for any stabilising force in Ukraine, most likely in the form of air power, but Starmer did not receive a firm pledge from Trump in his White House meeting with the US president.

Friday's clash between Trump and Zelensky made this prospect even less likely, with the US president accusing his counterpart of "gambling with World War III."

"Will Europe get a pledge of support from the US? I don't think so," says former national security adviser Lord Ricketts, writes The Guardian, according to Telegraph.

This, however, raises the difficult problem of how the safety of European peacekeepers in Ukraine would be guaranteed if Russia were to break any ceasefire.

Where does this leave NATO and the transatlantic security alliance?

The obvious reality is that, while Trump is president, the compact that underpinned European security for decades has disappeared.

Europe had been able to prioritize economic development, while the US extended a growing security umbrella that stretched across almost the entire continent.

Now, Trump's commitment to NATO is uncertain and it is unclear whether all 100,000 US troops in Europe will remain – and the White House is still keen to pursue direct security talks with Russia.

“It has been clear for some time that the US has other security priorities – domestically and in the Pacific, where it sees a long-term challenge from China,” Ellehuus said. “It’s something NATO allies have known for a decade, but until now, there has been nothing to ‘shove them into action.’ Will NATO survive now? That’s a harder question.” /Telegraph/