Europe’s Diplomatic Push to Save Ukraine: A Tale of Two Leaders
Introduction: A High-Stakes Diplomatic Mission
The leaders of France and the United Kingdom, President Emmanuel Macron and Prime Minister Keir Starmer, are embarking on a coordinated diplomatic mission to Washington this week. Their shared goal is to persuade President Donald Trump not to abandon Ukraine in the face of Russia’s aggression, as the three-year-old war between Kyiv and Moscow rages on. With the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine approaching, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Macron and Starmer are employing a strategy that echoes the classic "good cop, bad cop" approach, each playing to their strengths in an effort to maintain American support for Ukraine.
The "Good Cop, Bad Cop" Diplomacy: Macron and Starmer’s Roles
While both leaders agree on the importance of supporting Ukraine, their approaches to dealing with Trump are markedly different. Macron has been more direct in his criticism of Trump’s recent statements, which have been interpreted as echoing Russia’s narrative and undermining Ukraine’s position in any peace negotiations. Macron has warned Trump against appearing weak in the face of Russian President Vladimir Putin, arguing that allowing Russia to dominate Ukraine would have far-reaching consequences for global stability. On the other hand, Starmer has taken a more cautious approach, avoiding direct confrontation with Trump. Instead, he positions himself as a bridge between Europe and the U.S., emphasizing the need for a united front in support of Ukraine.
The two leaders spoke by phone on Sunday, reaffirming their commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and the importance of including Kyiv in any peace talks. Their coordinated efforts reflect a broader European strategy to ensure that Ukraine’s voice is not sidelined in negotiations. However, historians caution that the idea of Britain acting as a transatlantic bridge may be based on shaky ground. As Oxford University’s Margaret MacMillan noted, the "special relationship" between the U.K. and the U.S. has historically been more important to the British than to the Americans.
Double-Track Diplomacy: Europe’s Next Moves
Macron’s visit to Washington follows a crisis meeting of European leaders in Paris, where the continent’s next steps in the Ukraine conflict were discussed. Trump, however, has been dismissive of European efforts, claiming that Macron and Starmer have "haven’t done anything" to end the war over the past three years. Macron, known for his bold diplomatic moves, plans to argue that American and European interests are aligned, warning Trump that allowing Russia to takeover Ukraine would be "unstoppable."
Starmer, a center-left politician, has been more restrained in his criticism of Trump, avoiding direct confrontation. However, he has reaffirmed Britain’s support for Ukraine, rejecting Trump’s claims that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a "dictator" and that Kyiv was responsible for starting the war. Starmer spoke with Zelenskyy on Saturday, expressing "ironclad support" for Ukraine and pledging to stress the importance of safeguarding Ukraine’s sovereignty during his meeting with Trump.
Overcoming U.S. Reluctance: A Delicate Balance
Macron and Starmer face a challenging task in convincing Trump to remain committed to Ukraine’s cause. Trump has long been skeptical of NATO and has complained that the U.S. bears too much of the burden for Europe’s security. Both leaders are prepared to address this concern by emphasizing the need for increased European defense spending. France currently spends just over 2% of its GDP on defense, while the U.K. spends 2.3%. Macron has called on Europeans to "increase our war effort," and Starmer has pledged to boost Britain’s defense spending to 2.5% of GDP.
The two leaders also hope to gain U.S. support for a proposed "reassurance force" of European troops to guarantee Ukraine’s future security. However, this plan would require a U.S. "backstop," likely in the form of American air power, to deter further Russian aggression. Trump, who has been critical of European contributions to NATO, may be skeptical of such a proposal. Retired NATO official Jamie Shea suggests that Starmer should appeal to Trump’s sense of legacy, framing the potential peace agreement as a historic achievement that would forever bear Trump’s name.
Talking Trade and Tariffs: Economic Incentives on the Table
In addition to security concerns, trade will also be on the agenda for both Macron and Starmer. Trump has imposed or threatened tariffs on several of America’s trading partners, including a 10% tariff on Chinese goods and a 25% tax on goods from Canada and Mexico. U.K. officials hope that Britain’s departure from the European Union, which Trump has praised, and its relatively balanced trade relationship with the U.S., will help it avoid harsh tariffs.
Starmer also plans to address other contentious issues, including Trump’s suggestion that Palestinians be deported from Gaza and U.S. concerns about a U.K. agreement to cede the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. If all else fails, Britain may resort to a more ceremonial approach, with reports suggesting that Starmer will invite Trump for a state visit hosted by King Charles III, complete with royal pomp and pageantry.
Conclusion: The Weight of History and the Road Ahead
As Macron and Starmer prepare for their visits to Washington, the weight of history hangs in the balance. Their mission is not just about persuading Trump to support Ukraine but also about ensuring that the U.S. remains a key player in European security. While both leaders are committed to their cause, the outcome of their efforts remains uncertain. As Margaret MacMillan noted, great powers often prioritize their own interests, and there is no guarantee that Macron and Starmer will succeed in their mission.
For now, Europe can only hope that the combined efforts of its two most influential leaders will be enough to sway Trump and keep the U.S. engaged in the effort to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty. The road ahead is fraught with challenges, but the consequences of failure could be catastrophic—not just for Ukraine, but for the stability of the entire European continent.
