\n<\/p>\n
For years, European leaders have fretted about reducing their dependence on a wayward United States. On Monday, at a hastily arranged meeting in Paris, the hand-wringing gave way to harried acceptance of a new world in which Europe\u2019s most powerful ally has begun acting more like an adversary.<\/p>\n
President Trump\u2019s plan to negotiate a peace settlement in Ukraine with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, with neither the Ukrainians nor Europeans invited to take part, has forced dazed leaders in capitals like Berlin, London and Paris to confront a series of hard choices, painful trade-offs and costly new burdens.<\/p>\n
Already on the table is the possibility that Britain, France, Germany, and other countries will deploy tens of thousands of troops to Ukraine as peacekeepers. European governments are affirming the need for major increases in their military budgets \u2014 if not to the 5 percent of gross domestic product demanded by Mr. Trump, then to levels not seen since the Cold War days of the early 1980s.<\/p>\n
\u201cEverybody\u2019s hyped up at the moment, understandably,\u201d said Lawrence Freedman, emeritus professor of war studies at King\u2019s College London. \u201cWhat is clear is that whatever happens, Europe will have to step up.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
That could put its leaders in a difficult spot. While public support for Ukraine remains strong across Europe, committing troops to potentially dangerous duty on Ukrainian soil could quickly become a domestic political liability. Estimates on the size of a peacekeeping force vary widely, but under any scenario, it would be an extremely expensive undertaking at a time of straitened budgets.<\/p>\n
President Emmanuel Macron of France, who first floated the idea of a peacekeeping force last year \u2014 to widespread skepticism in Europe \u2014 has been weakened since his decision to call parliamentary elections last summer backfired and left him with a fragile government<\/a>.<\/p>\n Germany may not have a new coalition government for weeks after its election<\/a> on Feb. 23. On Monday, its chancellor, Olaf Scholz, dismissed talk of peacekeepers as \u201ccompletely premature\u201d and \u201chighly inappropriate\u201d while fighting was still raging.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain, who does not have to face voters for four years, said that Britain was open to \u201cputting our troops on the ground if necessary.\u201d But former military officials said that after years of budget cuts, the British military was not equipped to lead a large-scale, long-term mission in Ukraine.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n \u201cFrankly, we haven\u2019t got the numbers, and we haven\u2019t got the equipment,\u201d Richard Dannatt, a former head of the British Army, told the BBC<\/a>. He estimated that Britain would have to supply up to 40,000 troops to a 100,000-strong force.<\/p>\n For some Europeans, it is too soon to talk about a post-American era on the continent. Mr. Scholz and Poland\u2019s prime minister, Donald Tusk, warned leaders not to sunder the trans-Atlantic alliance, whatever the current tensions.<\/p>\n As a practical matter, a peacekeeping force would be difficult without logistical support from the United States. American security assurances, analysts said, were crucial to making it politically acceptable in European capitals, where some leaders will have to win approval from their parliaments. Mr. Starmer spoke of an \u201cAmerican backstop,\u201d saying that was \u201cthe only way to effectively deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again.\u201d<\/p>\n Professor Freedman said he believed that senior Trump administration officials like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the national security adviser, Michael Waltz, understood those realities and were not bent on pulling America\u2019s security umbrella from Europe. But he said that Mr. Trump\u2019s goals were harder to decipher; his drive for untrammeled power<\/a> at home has been deeply alarming to Europeans.<\/p>\n \u201cIn the past, you assumed that this was a serious, competent country,\u201d Professor Freedman said. \u201cIt\u2019s unnerving to think that might not be the case. There is a sense that the guardrails just aren\u2019t there.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n At the Munich Security Conference this past week, Vice President JD Vance delivered a blistering speech<\/a> in which he urged Europeans to stop shunning far-right parties and accused them of suppressing free speech.<\/p>\n Those comments prompted anguish among Europeans. \u201cWe have to fear that our common value base is not that common anymore,\u201d Christoph Heusgen, who chaired the conference, said. Mr. Heusgen, who was clearly emotional at the end of his speech, later clarified that his strong feelings were because he was leaving his job and were not a reaction to Mr. Vance\u2019s comments.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Many Germans viewed the vice president\u2019s comments as brazen election interference. Mr. Vance, who skipped a meeting with Mr. Scholz, did find time to meet with the co-leader of the far-right Alternative for Germany party, or AfD, Alice Weidel. Germany\u2019s mainstream parties have refused to enter coalitions with the AfD, which German intelligence agencies classify as an extremist organization.<\/p>\n Mr. Trump, meantime, has threatened to hit the European Union with sweeping tariffs<\/a>. That could damage the bloc\u2019s economies, which would make it even harder to lift spending on defense. NATO\u2019s secretary general, Mark Rutte, has called on the alliance\u2019s members to increase their spending to \u201cconsiderably more than 3 percent\u201d of gross domestic product (the United States spends 3.4 percent).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n In 2023, Germany spent 1.5 percent of its gross domestic product on defense, while France spent 2.1 percent and Britain 2.3 percent.<\/p>\n Beyond the political and economic provocations, European leaders are struggling to make sense of the Trump administration\u2019s strategy for Ukraine. Remarks by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signaled a reduction in American support for Ukraine\u2019s war goals \u2014 something that European leaders regret but privately acknowledge they share.<\/p>\n Yet Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, on a visit to the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, last week, suggested that the United States could supply a \u201clong-term security shield\u201d for Ukraine, provided it obtained access to the country\u2019s valuable minerals<\/a>. Mr. Trump\u2019s announcement of negotiations between him and Mr. Putin<\/a> blindsided European leaders and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.<\/p>\n \u201cA contradiction runs through the United States\u2019 approach,\u201d Nigel Gould-Davies, senior fellow for Russia and Eurasia at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a research group in London, wrote in an online essay<\/a>. \u201cIt has signaled that the U.S. alone will negotiate an end to the war but also that Europe alone must pay for and enforce an outcome it has not played a role in deciding.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n This assumes that Mr. Trump can strike a deal with Mr. Putin. Analysts note that the United States has already granted Russia two major concessions \u2014 ruling out Ukrainian membership in NATO and suggesting that it is unrealistic for Ukraine to reclaim all its territory \u2014 without receiving anything in return.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Some liken Mr. Trump\u2019s approach to his nuclear diplomacy with North Korea\u2019s leader, Kim Jong-un, during his first term. Meeting Mr. Kim in Singapore, Mr. Trump gave him a valuable concession<\/a> \u2014 no more military drills between the United States and South Korea \u2014 without getting a reciprocal gesture. The negotiations petered out, and North Korea has yet to give up its nuclear arsenal.<\/p>\n In this case, analysts said, the odds against a quick breakthrough might spare European leaders from having to commit troops, at least for now.<\/p>\n \u201cUnless the position on the ground improves greatly to Ukraine\u2019s advantage, it\u2019s hard to imagine Russia signing up to a deal that allows large numbers of NATO troops \u2014 including British ones \u2014 on its border,\u201d said Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director general of the Royal United Services Institute, a research group in London.<\/p>\n Professor Freedman said that Mr. Trump would have to persuade Mr. Putin to agree to terms that are acceptable to Mr. Zelensky \u2014 an exceedingly long shot.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re a long way from the circumstances where it makes sense,\u201d he said of a peacekeeping force. \u201cI can\u2019t get past the incompatibility between what Trump can offer and what the Russians want.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n