Ukraine: what can the Coalition of the Willing achieve?
A "Coalition of the Willing" consisting of more than 30 countries met in Paris on Thursday to discuss future security guarantees for Ukraine. Acting as host, Emmanuel Macron announced that 26 states had pledged to provide troops. After the conference, in which some leaders took part via video link, there was a group phone call with US President Donald Trump. Europe's press takes stock.
Washington back in the team
La Stampa sees a certain amount of progress in relations with the US:
“The harmony of the transatlantic agreementalso seems to have been restored, with the American president connecting to participate live in the meeting of a coalition which now apparently includes the United States. Zelensky had the satisfaction of revealing that Donald Trump had just reprimanded his Hungarian and Slovakian fans for their purchases of Russian oil.”
The spanner in the works
The coalition of the willing is failing because of Trump's Russia policy, writes political scientist Maksym Jali on Facebook:
“All the negotiations, phone calls and other activities of the 'coalition of the willing' and other participants in the negotiation process aimed at ending the Russian-Ukrainian war - including Trump himself - will fail to achieve practical results as long as Trump doesn't change his attitude towards Russia and especially towards Putin. But he doesn't want to. This is not just about personal sympathies, which he himself doesn't deny. The main reason for this tragicomedy is that Trump is convinced that with such a change he would 'burn all the bridges', and that the alliance between Russia and China could no longer be broken. And that is precisely what he wants to avoid at all costs.”
Between solidarity and greater dependence
Columnist Pierre Haski warns on France Inter of Europe's growing dependence:
“Europe is prepared to make many concessions to keep the US on its side. ... Europeans are asking two things of Trump: that he, like themselves, commit to a 'solidarity clause' with Ukraine in the event of further Russian aggression, and that he reject any restrictions on the size of the Ukrainian army in the peace agreement. ... The downside of these hopes that the US will help is that Europe's dependence on an America that is twisting its arm on trade issues and wants to dictate its digital policy would increase. ... Everything is connected, and Donald Trump knows this only too well.”
Russia must be stopped first
Putin has returned from China strengthened and there is little chance of forcing him to accept a ceasefire for the time being, Rzeczpospolita fears:
“After the military parade in Beijing, the Russian dictator has apparently decided to break his silence. During a press conference he made it clear that he has no intention of meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky. In an attempt to humiliate the Ukrainian leader, who has been fighting for four years now, the dictator invited him to a meeting in Moscow and at the same time questioned the legitimacy of Zelensky's government.”
Weapons deliveries matter more right now
Despite all the discussions about security guarantees, Ukraine is dependent on something else right now, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung stresses:
“There are no signs that Vladimir Putin is willing to accept anything other than Ukraine's surrender. The Kremlin has also clearly stated that it won't even discuss the idea of Western troops in Ukraine. It will only back down on this if it is under so much pressure that it sees no other way out. It is therefore far more important to step up support for Ukraine with arms deliveries and financial aid than to work towards the currently completely unrealistic scenario of a peacekeeping force.”
The Korean scenario
Radio Kommersant FM takes a look at what a "Korean solution" would entail:
“Zelensky has for the first time indicated that he would agree to a so-called Korean scenario, which he had previously categorically rejected. This would involve a cessation of hostilities along the front line. ... As things look now, the oft-cited security guarantees would consist of continuous arms deliveries, the training of military personnel, intelligence and logistical support. Western troops would remain in their own countries but would be positioned so that they could come to Ukraine's aid in the event of serious problems. Russia would thus end up with a heavily armed state modelled on South Korea on its borders, one that has state-of-the-art weapons and enjoys the full protection of the West.”