American negotiators have been negotiating on separate tracks with Ukraine and Russia in the hope that those two tracks will eventually converge. Despite President Donald Trump’s recent statement that the two sides are “maybe very close” to a deal, and the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky’s evaluation that a plan is “90 percent ready,” the two sides seem to be moving no closer together. 

In negotiating, the Ukrainian and European sides may be hoping to highlight that it is Russia that is saying no. And there is plenty in—and not in—their latest position that Russia will say no to. But, incoherently, Europe seems to have negotiated itself into a corner from which Russia doesn’t have to be the one to say no because Europe will.

The latest round of talks in Paris has produced a statement and a set of promises that contain at least three items that Europe will find it hard to agree to, unless they are forced to do so by the United States.

The first is a seemingly indefinite commitment to pay for the Ukrainian armed forces. In negotiations, Ukraine and its European partners have rejected the already massive limit of 600,000 personnel in the Ukrainian armed forces and demanded a higher ceiling of 800,000. The former number would already leave Ukraine with by far the largest army in Europe outside of Russia. The latter number is self-defeating. A postwar Ukraine will be incapable of either raising or financing such a large army. Even with forced conscription, Ukraine has struggled to maintain those numbers during war. And even if it could find them, they would struggle to pay them. The most massive army on the continent would be very expensive to maintain. 

Europe cannot solve the manpower problem. But the latest statements hint at a solution to the economic problem. There seems to be a requirement that Europe will pay for Ukraine’s army. The European Commission statement that came out of the January 6 meeting in Paris agrees to “continued cooperation with Ukraine on its national budget to finance the armed forces.”

But unpopular European governments with desperately struggling economies, who have already spent $350 billion on Ukraine, will be hard pressed to live up to that promise. Though European leaders have offered endless and massive funding now, they will be unable to honor their commitment and, unless compelled, current or future governments will say no and default on the promise.

The second item is offered as compensation for NATO’s door closing on Ukraine. Burned by NATO promises of irreversible paths, Ukraine rejects vague promises of far-off membership in the European Union. Zelensky has said that he wants, not only a “firm and concrete guarantee,” but a “precise date for Ukraine’s entry into the bloc.”

The European Joint Statement on Ukraine, issued December 15, contains a commitment to “Strongly support Ukraine’s accession to the European Union.” Ukraine’s revised 20-point peace plan sets out a defined timeline with targets like 2027 or 2028.

But the EU has struggled to reach a consensus even on Ukraine’s membership, let alone immediate membership. As the New York Times concedes, “it remains uncertain whether the E.U. would agree to identify such a date, given the complexity of its membership negotiations.”

A growing number of European states have reservations about Ukrainian membership. Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban promised to “do everything” to prevent Ukraine from joining the EU. But Ukraine’s former EU ambassador, Olha Stefanishyna, has revealed that there is more than one country that has concerns about Ukraine joining the EU. Poland’s President Karol Nawrocki campaigned against Ukraine’s accession to the EU. 

Some concerns are pragmatic. Molly O’Neal, non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute, commented to The American Conservative that a major obstacle “is the financial/budgetary implications of EU structural aid and agricultural sector support.” Ukraine’s huge agricultural sector poses a threat to other countries. “If Ukraine joined, Poland, which has been a big beneficiary from the EU budget, would become a net contributor to the EU budget,” O’Neal said. “This would not be popular in Poland, to put it mildly.”

There are more values-based concerns too. To qualify for EU membership, all of a country’s legislation has to be consistent with EU standards. Ukraine struggles with corruption, democracy, and human rights issues in the cultural, linguistic, and religious protection of its ethnic minorities. 

European leaders have mentioned more realistic targets of 2030 or 2035. Europe may also say no to near-instant, qualification-free accession to the EU.

The third item is a commitment of European troops to keep the peace without an American backstop. The latest round of talks commits Europe to deploying troops in Ukraine. The Coalition of the Willing Statement on Robust Security Guarantees for a Solid and Lasting Peace in Ukraine promises a multinational force with “binding commitments to support Ukraine in case of a future armed attack by Russia.”

This commitment is a deal-breaker. Russia went to war to keep Ukraine out of NATO and NATO out of Ukraine. It has repeatedly made it clear that it will say no to NATO member states putting troops in Ukraine. But they may not have to, because Europe itself may say no. 

Europe has long said it cannot place troops in Ukraine without a U.S. military backstop. But the statement makes no such commitment. And it is very vague even on Europe’s commitment. 

All U.S. commitments in the security statement are expressed in the language of possibilities. U.S. leadership of a ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism is “proposed.” The multinational force’s reassurance measures will be European led with “the proposed support of the US.”

And, in the end, the “binding commitments to support Ukraine… may include the use of military capabilities” and it will still be “the Armed Forces of Ukraine [that] will remain the first line of defence and deterrence.”

There is no commitment for Europe to fight for Ukraine. Only Britain and France have formally committed to sending troops. And that commitment seems to number a mere 7,500–15,000 troops. Europe has no more troops to send than it has euros. The UK is “steadily reducing the size of their armed forces troop commitment for the accord because they hardly have any to spare,” according to the security analyst Stephen Bryen. France’s President Emmanuel Macron says only that “several thousand” French troops could be sent to Ukraine as a “force of reassurance” and that “these are not forces that will be engaged in combat.”

Subscribe Today

Get daily emails in your inbox

Email Address:

Anatol Lieven, director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute, commented that the security commitments made in Paris are “very ambiguous.” He said it appears that Europe “can't manage it and are desperately trying to find a way of backing out of their commitments without appearing to do so.”

As for commitments, there are even reports that, in the end, the U.S. did not even sign the statement, and only the UK and France did.

There is much in the latest Ukrainian-European peace plan that Russia would say no to. But they may not have to since Europe may say no first.