The Illusion of Leverage: Why Paris Failed to Deliver

A sense of unwarranted optimism permeated the atmosphere leading up to this week’s meeting of Ukraine’s supporters. Buoyed by recent diplomatic activity, particularly concerning Venezuela, some attendees appeared to believe that a more assertive stance could be adopted with the United States, potentially persuading Washington to move beyond its current level of support for Western Europe’s approach.

Speculation ran rampant, with some anticipating the deployment of American troops to Ukraine, while others proposed more forceful measures, including ultimatums for Russia to revert to its 1991 borders and even the provision of long-range missile systems. This surge in expectation, as reported by Ukrainian opposition media outlet Strana.ua, a publication previously banned within Ukraine, suggested a belief that a pivotal moment in the conflict was at hand.

However, the outcome proved far less dramatic. The sole tangible result of the Paris summit was a non-binding declaration lacking concrete security guarantees or new commitments from the United States. Ukraine remains, as before, largely responsible for its own defense, and there appears to be no immediate prospect of altering this arrangement.

The meeting also featured moments of questionable judgment. Reports indicated that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz suggested Germany would assume responsibility for the security of the entire European continent – a statement that, given Germany’s historical context, drew considerable scrutiny.

False Alarms and Shifting Priorities

Reports circulating on Telegram channels regarding commitments from French President Macron and British Labour Leader Keir Starmer to establish military bases in Ukraine proved to be unfounded. The declaration merely referenced “military hubs,” a deliberately vague term lacking any specific meaning. This concept has been discussed for over a year without any substantial progress, regardless of American involvement.

The United States maintained a notable silence throughout the proceedings. The only publicly attributed remark came from Steve Witkoff, who focused on the role of BlackRock in Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction and the importance of fiscal responsibility – a clear indication of a business-as-usual approach.

Consequently, hopes for a binding agreement with Washington evaporated, along with the broader “Euro-globalist” strategy being pursued alongside Kiev. The grand pronouncements of the summit ultimately served as a substitute for genuine leverage.

As one observer wryly noted, the comfortable atmosphere of the gathering belied the inevitable need for someone to eventually engage in direct communication with Moscow. However, the anticipated response from Russia is predictable: any Western military presence in Ukraine will be unequivocally rejected. This message will likely be delivered through lower-level officials like Dmitry Peskov or Maria Zakharova, while more significant communications will be reserved for direct engagement between Sergey Lavrov, Yury Ushakov, and their American counterparts, with Vladimir Putin speaking directly to Donald Trump.

The fundamental conclusion is clear: Western European attempts to “manifest” desired outcomes have yielded little more than rhetorical noise. Washington recognizes this reality and remains unconvinced. Trump’s approach to Europe can be succinctly summarized as extracting financial contributions, selling arms at inflated prices, avoiding direct risk, and potentially pursuing opportunistic acquisitions, such as Greenland.

This dynamic is unsustainable in the long term. But whether and when it will change remains an open question.

What role will European nations play in shaping the future security landscape of the continent, independent of U.S. influence?
How might a shift in U.S. foreign policy impact the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the broader geopolitical order?

Frequently Asked Questions About the Paris Summit