For Europe’s leaders, the weekend began with another threat to their relevance, courtesy of President Trump. Would the Americans really force Ukraine to capitulate, embrace President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and undermine NATO — all without even bothering to consult with them?
By Tuesday, the latest diplomatic emergency seemed to have been averted for the moment, if hardly resolved, thanks to a how-to-handle-Trump playbook that European leaders have honed over a year of similar episodes.
The Europeans — led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain, President Emmanuel Macron of France and Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany — resisted the urge to lash out at Mr. Trump’s 28-point peace plan despite its pro-Russia tilt. Instead, they embraced the plan publicly to keep the president happy, even as they insisted that it was only a starting point for discussions.
The goal was to slow the process down and eliminate some of the provisions they saw as crossing Europe’s red lines: Russian seizure of broad swaths of Ukrainian territory, a ban on Ukraine’s membership in NATO, a limit on the size of Ukraine’s military and a refusal to allow European troops on the ground in Ukraine.
The flurry of behind-the-scenes diplomacy appeared to have given the abrupt peace effort some momentum by the end of the weekend.
After a meeting on the sidelines of the Group of 20 in South Africa on Saturday, the Europeans declared the president’s plan to be a good start and vowed to work together to “strengthen” its provisions.
By the end of negotiations in Geneva on Sunday, this time attended by senior European diplomats, the United States and Ukraine issued a joint statement announcing an “updated and refined peace framework” and pledging to continue negotiations on a deal that upholds Ukraine’s sovereignty. European leaders met again to discuss Ukraine on Monday on the sidelines of a business summit in Angola, as Ukrainian and American officials worked to streamline the proposal.
On Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Starmer, Mr. Macron and Mr. Merz are scheduled to hold a meeting of the “coalition of the willing,” a group of European nations who have pledged to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine after a deal is reached.
According to Mujtaba Rahman, a managing director for the Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy, “The Europeans effectively have a modus vivendi for dealing with the Trump administration.” He said that the aim was to “slowly steer Trump back to a more favorable position for the Ukrainians and the Europeans. That’s the effort in Geneva. And from what I can tell, the effort seems to have been quite successful so far.”
The diplomatic strategy is driven in part by an evolving view of how to handle Mr. Trump. Heaping praise on the president works. Delay when possible. And always avoid the kind of personal blowups that flared between the president and Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, in February.
The Europeans are also driven by the reality on the ground. They are still reliant on the United States for the sophisticated equipment and munitions needed to help Ukraine fight Russia. And despite efforts to build up their own military industries, they will still need American help to protect their countries for years, if not decades, to come.
“Europe can do a lot, and it could do more, and it can spend more money, and it can build more things,” said Richard Fontaine, chief executive of the Center for a New American Security, a Washington-based think tank. “But it cannot replace the United States as a security and intelligence partner.”
It is unclear whether the European interventions over the weekend will have a lasting effect given the vicissitudes of previous negotiations. Several diplomats and analysts said on Monday they doubted that an agreement that satisfied Europeans would ever be accepted by Russia.
There also remains no clear path to peace between Ukraine and Russia because of the wide gulf between Mr. Putin’s demands for control of Ukraine’s eastern lands and Mr. Zelensky’s refusal to cede territory. Some longtime observers of European diplomacy say that leaders on the continent are doing far too little to assert themselves on behalf of one of their own embattled nations.
“It reeks of weakness, a lack of conviction and strength,” said Ivo Daalder, an American former ambassador to NATO. “What you have is Europe being cut out every single time, and then they’re surprised when they’re cut out. And then they do damage limitation.”
Europe has found itself in this position before — scrambling for influence as Mr. Trump and his team make pronouncements with profound implications for the continent.
Politicians across Europe were rattled in February when Vice President JD Vance seemed to preview an American retreat from the continent. In the months that followed, the United States repeatedly put Europe’s leverage and authority to the test.
Each time, the presidents and prime ministers in Europe responded by engaging, rather than confronting their American counterpart.
In April, Mr. Trump declared “Liberation Day,” announcing that he would impose huge tariffs across the world, including on the major economies in Europe. Political leaders responded by offering to negotiate, and in most cases reached agreements that were less onerous than the ones Mr. Trump had threatened.
Two months ago, Mr. Trump abruptly unveiled a peace plan aimed at ending the war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. European diplomats were taken aback by the initial proposal, which they described privately as too pro-Israel and logistically unworkable.
Instead of trashing the plan, they embraced it. Mr. Starmer quickly issued a statement saying that the United States’ proposal was “profoundly welcome and I am grateful for President Trump’s leadership.” At the same time, European officials worked behind the scenes to modify the proposal, adding more robust language about aid for Gaza and the need to eventually establish a Palestinian state.
Within a week, the United Nations passed a resolution endorsing a version of Mr. Trump’s Gaza plan, but with small changes.
Now, European leaders are trying again with Ukraine.
Mr. Fontaine, the analyst, said he was relieved to hear of reports on Monday that the president’s 28-point peace plan had already been significantly altered in the wake of the discussions over the weekend. That suggests, he said, that Europeans have found a way to engage with Mr. Trump in ways that benefit their long-term goals.
“They have learned over the course of this year that often these opening gambits, whether it’s on tariffs or NATO membership or Ukraine or Gaza, often amount to just that, an opening gambit,” he said. “It may seem like the best and final offer, but it’s often a negotiating position.”
Others are less optimistic about Europe’s ability to steer its own fate in the months and years ahead.
Edward R. Arnold, a senior research fellow at the London-based Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies, said that under Mr. Trump, Washington was willing to go over the heads of the Europeans to get what it wanted on Ukraine and other issues.
“The fact that they’ve outsourced their military protection for so long to the U.S. means they’ve effectively outsourced their diplomatic clout as well,” Mr. Arnold said of the leaders of Britain, France, Germany and other European countries. “It’s very, very difficult for the Europeans to get back into the game.”
Michael D. Shear is a senior Times correspondent covering British politics and culture, and diplomacy around the world.
The post As Trump Pushes to End Ukraine War, Europe Toils to Have a Say appeared first on New York Times.
