by Rajnish Singh
UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson once said, “A week is a long time in politics.” Last week began with smooth diplomatic meetings between French President Emmanuel Macron, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and US President Donald Trump. They even gently corrected Trump and Vice President JD Vance in front of the press over specific facts.
By week’s end, tensions had flared. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was ejected from the White House after a heated clash with Trump and Vance, shattering hopes of a peace deal and a crucial mineral agreement. Accusations followed;
Zelenskyy was criticised for pushing too hard undiplomatically for security guarantees, while his defenders argued the White House had set him up to fail.
Over the weekend, however, the tide turned. In London, Zelenskyy was warmly welcomed by Starmer, King Charles, and EU leaders, including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa. They pledged a “coalition of the willing” to support Ukraine.
With Trump freezing US military aid, Europe faces the challenge of filling the gap. Economically, this is feasible; to match US contributions, Europe would need to increase spending by just 0.12%. But funding alone is not enough. The US has provided critical high-end systems, such as rocket launchers, missile defence systems, Abrams tanks, and millions of artillery rounds, which Europe cannot quickly replace.
EU arms production lags behind demand, and replacing long-range missiles could take years. Despite Ukraine’s growing domestic production, it remains heavily dependent on Western munitions and advanced weaponry.
Another major hurdle is military coordination. The EU lacks a unified command structure, logistics capabilities, and satellite intelligence comparable to the US. Even Elon Musk’s Starlink is crucial in Ukraine’s battlefield communications. Therefore, even if Europe provided peacekeeping forces, as Starmer and Macron have proposed, they would still need US support to be militarily effective.
Political divisions further complicate EU support. Germany has hesitated to send long-range Taurus missiles because of domestic politics, Hungary has resisted funding and Slovakia recently withdrew support. While Italy, along with fellow southern European countries Portugal and Spain, voiced opposition to the proposed EU €20 billion military aid package for Ukraine as announced at the London summit highlights a fragmented European response.
Europe could, however, assist Ukraine in sustaining its fight through increased aid and stockpiles in the short term. But without US hardware and coordination, Ukraine faces a war of attrition against Russia’s larger forces, now bolstered by North Korean troops.
The UK and EU must be realistic about what they can deliver militarily. So far, they have yet to prove they can replace US support. Ultimately, Europe knows that any lasting peace will still require American guarantees—whether Trump is willing to provide them will now depend on the diplomatic skills of Europe’s leaders.
By: N. Peter Kramer
