Europe will not allow the war to end. It will sell this to its citizens as the “defense of the continent” and intensify its propaganda of fear toward Russia
Europe is siding with Zelensky and rejecting the American “quick peace,” but the price is further militarization of the continent and a deepening dependence on the war.
Today’s tour of London and Brussels by Ukrainian President Zelensky comes at a moment when Washington is allegedly trying to push through a “quick peace,” while Europe is working to prevent Ukraine from being, as they call it, “presented with a fait accompli.” At Downing Street, the Ukrainian president sat at the table with Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, and Friedrich Merz — and a few hours later continued talks in Brussels with Mark Rutte, Ursula von der Leyen, and António Costa. There is no formal agreement, but the political framework has narrowed significantly. Europeans are publicly siding with Zelensky against several elements of the American plan, and thus, once again, the entire “peace saga” is being pushed several steps backwards.
In London, the same fundamental mantra heard for months was confirmed again: a “just and lasting peace,” without formally giving up territory and without demilitarization that would leave Ukraine defenseless. Starmer explicitly stated that Britain will not pressure Kyiv to accept any solution involving loss of territory, and Merz admitted on camera that he is skeptical of parts of the American proposal. Zelensky, for his part, made it clear that there is no agreement on Donbas and that the territorial issue is the most difficult part of the entire package.
Brussels was meant to demonstrate that behind those three major European players stands “institutional” Europe as well. The meeting with NATO Secretary General Rutte and the heads of the European Commission and Council focused on security guarantees, air defense, and long-term funding for Ukraine. The idea is to supplement the peace framework — which is currently being shaped largely by Washington — with European elements: from monitoring any ceasefire to reconstruction packages and Ukraine’s future EU membership. The message is that “the path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine,” but also not without Europe, which claims that “the Russians and Americans” want to impose a new architecture on them.
All of this is happening under the shadow of the 28-point American plan (if Trump hasn’t already abandoned much of it?), a document that in its initial form would require Kyiv to recognize Russia’s de facto control over Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk, freeze the front line on the rest of the occupied territory, limit the Ukrainian army to 600,000 soldiers, permanently renounce NATO membership, and gradually lift sanctions on Russia. In exchange, it offers “robust security guarantees” and reintegration of Moscow into the global economy.
Today’s London meeting thus had its expected function: coordinate European positions in order to “Europeanize” — that is, undermine and eliminate — that American framework. In practice, this means softening or erasing the most controversial points. Above all, the explicit renunciation of Donbas and the formalization of annexation, and incorporating mechanisms that would prevent new Russian offensives after any ceasefire. French and British officials are already speaking of solid security guarantees, long-term training programs, intelligence-sharing, and permanent rotation of forces and equipment in countries surrounding Ukraine. In this way, at least on paper, Europe takes on part of the role the U.S. has held within NATO.
The other major topic is money. The European Commission has already proposed using frozen Russian assets — hundreds of billions of euros from the Russian Central Bank’s reserves — as collateral for a major “reparations loan” to Ukraine. Amounts of up to €210 billion are being discussed, a combination of profits from managing frozen Russian assets and new European borrowing. Belgium and parts of the financial establishment warn of legal and systemic risks, but the political pressure to shift the cost of the war onto Moscow is immense. Meanwhile, the EU is announcing that it will itself cover two-thirds of Ukraine’s financial and military needs for 2026–2027, regardless of American fluctuations.
Behind all this, Europe is undergoing accelerated militarization. Member states are increasing defense budgets, opening new production lines for ammunition and missiles, and signing multi-year contracts with domestic and American arms manufacturers. The Netherlands has just announced a new €700 million package of military aid, Nordic countries are sending additional air-defense systems, and Germany and France are pushing European funds that will finance Ukraine’s budget deficit for years. Publicly, this is sold as an “investment in peace,” but in reality it means the EU is increasingly transforming into a military-economic actor for whom the war on the eastern flank becomes a permanent engagement.
For Zelensky, this situation is existential. In a recent address to his own citizens he openly stated that Ukraine faces a very hard choice — either lose its dignity or risk losing its key partner. “Dignity” means refusing to formally cede territory and accept Russia’s conditions, while “losing a partner” refers to the possibility that Trump, faced with resistance from Kyiv, might shut off the American military and financial pipeline. That is precisely why Zelensky has been intensively “binding” Ukraine to Europe in recent weeks — from security guarantees to an accelerated path toward EU membership.
At the same time, neither he nor his European partners can simply turn their backs on the United States. The heaviest weapons, parts of Ukraine’s air-defense system, satellite and intelligence support — these are “levers” still firmly in American hands. European armies are also deeply integrated into NATO structures still politically dominated by Washington. Thus Zelensky is trying to balance: in London he repeats that “there are things neither America nor Europe can do without,” while simultaneously agreeing with Europeans on the red lines he will use as arguments in talks with Trump. If the U.S. attempts to force him into a “quick peace,” he will be able to say — as he has several times before — that it is not only Ukraine but also key European powers who oppose it.
From the European perspective, this balancing act serves a dual purpose. On one hand, Brussels, Berlin, Paris, and London want to prevent a scenario in which Washington alone negotiates a new division of spheres of influence with Moscow. On the other hand, this very “defense of principles” allows European elites to justify increasing defense budgets, weakening the welfare state, and embracing a logic of permanent confrontation to their own populations. The rhetoric of a “just peace” and “defense of the international order” obscures the fact that a military-industrial complex is being built in the background — one that will require new reasons for its existence even after Ukraine.
What does all this mean for the further course of the war?
In the short term, today’s meetings give Zelensky “political oxygen.” He has been assured that Europe will not abandon him if he rejects a bad deal, and that funds and weapons will continue to arrive. This will strengthen his negotiating position in upcoming rounds with the Americans and reinforce Moscow’s belief that it will not receive any near-term capitulation from Kyiv. In the long term, however, it means the war may easily turn into a frozen conflict in which Ukraine survives on European loans and subsidies, while Europe endlessly propagates fear of Russia to its own citizens.
About the Author
