Subscribe
Critical issues persist on a global scale in relation to the ongoing conflicts and the complicated possible resolutions. Last week’s live TV confrontation between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky has, in fact, once again changed the face of the war between Russia and Ukraine: US support for the latter has waned, as has the signing of the rare earth minerals agreement, given almost for certain a few hours before the White House talks. Not only that: the tycoon had strong words to say about the Ukrainian number one, underlining, once again and from his own point of view, the inadequacy of Zelensky as a leader and interlocutor for reaching a truce. For his part, the Ukrainian President reiterated that he was ready to take a step back as long as Ukraine joined NATO and a long-term solution was found to keep the peace. These statements were made during various meetings with European premiers, such as the British Prime Minister, and with King Charles III in the days following the clash in the Oval Office. It has to be said that, in the last few hours, there seem to have been new developments: Trump, at the end of a very long speech to Congress, revealed that he perceived a Zelensky actually ready ‘to sit down at the peace table’. Then the London summit took place on Sunday 2 March, seeing the attendance of the European leaders. A summit that aimed to take the situation head-on and clarify in what direction to proceed to ‘protect the West and its values’.
The meeting between European leaders
Immediately after the meeting between Trump and Zelensky, Meloni reported on her social pages that ‘any division of the West’ weakens countries and ‘favours those who would like to see the decline of our civilisation’. The Italian prime minister wanted to emphasise from the outset that ‘a division would not be good for anyone’. Therefore, she continued, ‘an immediate summit between the United States, European states and allies is necessary to talk frankly about how we intend to face today’s great challenges. Starting with Ukraine, which we have defended together in recent years, and the challenges that we will be called upon to face in the future’. This is Italy’s response, aiming to find a balance without clearly defining a strategy; more than anything else, the goal is to arrive at a constructive confrontation between the parties. So, here was a first meeting between European leaders. Coordinating the work was British Prime Minister Starmer who, only a few hours earlier, had had the opportunity to talk to Zelensky and reiterate his total support for Ukraine. Certainly, establishing a plan for peace is the most complex challenge the West has faced in many years. Trump is moving in one direction and seems to want to do so regardless of the Western coalition. It should also be added that the announcement of 25% tariffs for Europe did not help the already tense climate between the parties. In any case, the meeting was also attended by other countries, such as Canada and Turkey. The idea would be to build a coalition with non-European states, but the need for cooperation with the United States remains a priority. Therefore, the British Prime Minister made it clear to those present that he had had talks with the American President, so as to explain to him the plan shared by England and France. He also stressed that his country would continue to support Ukraine in the purchase of new weapons. Reference is made to a loan of over £1.5 billion. This is a totally opposite modus operandi from that deployed instead by Trump, who suspended aid to Ukraine in the absence of an agreement between the parties regarding the ‘peace’ desired on US terms. The ‘coalition of the willing’, as it has been called by the proposing leaders, starts with a ceasefire. Or at least that is what Macron explained to Le Figaro after the meeting. In fact, it would start with a one-month halt that would only allow for land clashes. Once again, both Macron and Starmer reiterated their being open to sending European troops to Ukrainian soil; a solution that, however, did not convince other leaders such as the German Chancellor and the Italian Prime Minister.
Von der Leyen’s solution: 800 billion on the defence pot
While waiting to understand the diplomatic developments of the matter, the European Commission led by Ursula von der Leyen set out a new defence plan. The tone used by the Commission President while communicating her commitment was serious. ‘We live in dangerous times,’ she said bluntly, ’the consequences could be devastating’. And on the plate came a good 800 billion for defence. The idea, it must be said, did not please everyone, in Italy both the majority and the opposition found in the position taken by the Commission a hasty sharpness that would not indicate the best solution for European countries. Von der Leyen, however, specified that the need was expressed by the voices of the leaders who participated in the various summits. In fact, during her own speech, he shared: ‘In the various meetings of the last few weeks – the last one two days ago in London – the response of the European capitals was as resounding as it was clear. We are in an era of rearmament. And Europe is ready to massively increase defence spending. Both in response to the short-term urgency to act and support Ukraine, and to address the long-term need to take greater responsibility for our European security’. The proposal is based on five pillar ideas in a document bearing the title ‘Rearm Europe’; indeed, it is this title that has caused the most concern. It will be discussed at length at the summit called for Thursday, 6 March, which will be attended by all states. Several times the word ‘urgent’ has been used to define the approach, so much so that bureaucratic cutbacks have also been brought into play to speed things up and be ready.
How the 8 billion is divided
Specifically, the Stability Pact is called into question. Derogations to the Pact, in fact, would generate 650 billion in four years to defend the European Union. Von der Leyen, therefore, explained that the national safeguard clause of the Stability and Growth Pact would be activated. A condition that would allow all member states to increase defence spending ‘without triggering the excessive deficit procedure’. Then she spoke of a new instrument that should provide around EUR 150 billion in loans to states. Obviously, the reference remains to the defence sector. In practice, we are talking about the supply of weapons and ‘air and missile defence, artillery systems, missiles and ammunition, drones and anti-drone systems, but also other needs, such as cybernetics and military mobility’. In this way, as stated by the Commission’s number one, it will be easy to intervene in support of Ukraine. Finally, a third point that looks in the direction of the power of the EU budget. The Commission believes that efforts in this direction can guarantee results in the short term. ‘We will propose,’ von der Leyen explained, ‘further possibilities and incentives for those member states that decide, if they want to use cohesion policy programmes, to increase defence spending.’