London Summit For Ukraine: Early Results And Missed Opportunities.
London Summit: A Coalition In Defense Of Ukraine.
On March 2, 2025, European leaders convened in London to address the escalating crisis in Ukraine and to formulate a unified strategy for peace.
Hosted by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the summit aimed to bolster support for Ukraine and draft a comprehensive peace proposal to present to the United States.
The visual of Europe stepping up and showing leadership for Ukraine, with the UK—a primary U.S. ally in Europe and a crucial bridge between Europe and the U.S.—leading these efforts, is, of course, significant.
Zelensky was warmly welcomed at 10 Downing Street, where Starmer uncharacteristically gave him a massive hug and emphasized that all the cheers were for him and Ukraine.
It was particularly notable that President Zelensky was greeted personally by King Charles.
The symbolism here is crucial: an audience with the King represents the highest level of honor for any foreign dignitary.
This is why British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s invitation to Donald Trump for a second state visit, including a meeting with the King, was seen as a major gesture—one that Trump himself deeply appreciated.
(side note: following the humiliation Zelensky suffered in the Oval Office, there are already calls for that state visit to be reconsidered.)
All of these visuals were crucial—they underscored Europe’s commitment to Ukraine and sent a direct message to Donald Trump that his rejection of Zelensky would not lead to a full European retreat in an attempt to appease him.
Unlike Republican lawmakers who last week signaled a willingness to align with Trump’s rhetoric, European leaders sought to demonstrate a unified front.
Key Outcomes:
Development of a Peace Plan: The UK, France, and Ukraine agreed to collaborate on a ceasefire plan to present to the United States, following a contentious meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and U.S. President Donald Trump.
Military Support for Ukraine: The UK committed £1.6 billion in export financing to supply Ukraine with 5,000 air defense missiles, significantly enhancing its defensive capabilities.
(side note: The Lightweight Multirole Missile (LMM), also known as "Martlet," is a highly versatile and advanced precision-strike missile developed in the UK. Weighing just 13 kg, it boasts an operational range of over 6 km and speeds exceeding Mach 1.5, making it effective for engaging a variety of targets from different platforms, including helicopters, drones, and small naval vessels. But, it is also no replacement for Patriot missiles meant for faster ballistic missiles.)
Economic Measures Against Russia: Leaders concurred on intensifying economic pressure on Russia by implementing additional sanctions, particularly targeting its energy revenues, and tightening enforcement of existing measures.
Strengthening European Defense: Recognizing the necessity for self-reliance, European nations pledged to increase defense spending to enhance their own security infrastructure. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen emphasized the importance of this investment for prolonged periods.
Observations: Missed Opportunities And Strategic Mistakes In Political Framing.
While the optics were important, several notable observations emerge from the summit:
1. Lack of Concrete Financial Commitments.
Despite European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen emphasizing the need for more weapons and funding to transform Ukraine into a “steel porcupine,” no concrete financial commitments were made.
This represents a missed opportunity.
There are lower-hanging fruits that could have been pursued, such as freezing the $300 billion in Russian reserves—$220 billion of which are held within the EU—or issuing Eurobonds to fund Ukraine’s defense.
(side note: we discussed these in-depth in yesterday’s post.)
Yet, no decisive actions were taken.
Yes, the EU is a complex institution, and such measures cannot be implemented overnight.
However, at the very least, a clear signal of intent should have been made.
That did not happen, and Europe failed to demonstrate the necessary determination at a moment when it was most needed.
2. Overemphasis on the U.S. Role - Securing Trump’s derision on Monday.
It is undeniable that the U.S. plays a critical role—not just in terms of financial and military support, but also in providing real-time intelligence, targeting capabilities, and operational assistance.
For example, the UK had to seek U.S. permission to allow Storm Shadow missiles to be used inside Ukraine due to reliance on American target acquisition and intelligence-sharing - in the absence of which, Storm Shadows lose their maximum effectiveness.
That said, the summit placed an excessive emphasis on the indispensability of the U.S. in Ukraine’s defense.
Starmer, as the leader of the London Summit, essentially tied Europe’s commitment to Ukraine to the assumption of continued American support.
Statements like these featured heavily: "Europe must do the heavy lifting, but to support peace in our continent and to succeed, this effort must have strong U.S. backing." and "Only a U.S. 'backstop' can secure lasting Ukraine peace."
A framing later repeated by the UK’s armed services minister (indicating that this framing is unfortunately unlikely to disappear anytime soon.)
The implication was clear: if Trump were to follow through on his rhetoric and abandon Ukraine, then Ukraine would be left to fail.
This framing is damaging for European deterrence.
A bloc of 450 million people (or 520 with the U.K) , with three major economic powerhouses—including two nuclear-armed states—really cannot provide the necessary security backstop for Ukraine without the U.S.?
If Europe itself is signaling that only U.S. involvement can guarantee Ukraine’s survival, then it is undermining its own leverage both in negotiations with Russia and in future security arrangements.
This is precisely the scenario that must be avoided.
If figures like the next German Chancellor Friedrich Merz are correct and the NATO transatlantic alliance weakens—or if Trump ultimately removes U.S. protection from Europe—what then?
Is Europe truly admitting that it cannot deter Russia on its own?
This approach plays directly into Trump’s hands, revealing weakness and a lack of preparedness.
Instead of projecting strength, it signals European reliance on the U.S. as an unavoidable crutch, which in turn damages Europe’s credibility as a security actor.
Is it any wonder then that Trump was quick to ridicule Europeans for being ‘‘weak” and dependent on the U.S.?
(side note: that this damages America’s own security needs - by calling our allies weak - naturally goes over Trump’s genius head.)
3. Internal Disunity and Conflicting Messages.
The summit also suffered from internal noise and lack of coordination.
Some European countries expressed reservations about joining the coalition of willing states for troop deployments, which created an impression of division.
French President Emmanuel Macron, as is characteristic, introduced his own separate initiative—proposing a one-month truce that would only apply to air, sea, and critical infrastructure attacks.
His reasoning was that such a truce would be easier to monitor and could help assess Russia’s intentions.
However, this idea was flawed on multiple levels.
Firstly, Russia would never agree to such terms, as its primary advantage in the war lies in its air power—relentlessly striking Ukraine with glide bombs, drone swarms, and North Korean ballistic missiles.
Land warfare, where Ukraine has been able to hold ground and even retake some territory (such as in Toretsk), is not Russia’s strongest suit.
Secondly, a ceasefire that restricts only aerial and missile strikes would be highly disadvantageous to Ukraine while allowing Russia to regroup.
Thirdly, Zelensky himself swiftly rejected this idea - and for good reasons too.
Ukraine has recently succeeded in deep strikes against Russia’s infrastructure, including in the Black Sea, and agreeing to such a ceasefire would mean voluntarily surrendering this strategic advantage.
Finally, and more broadly, any pause in fighting without ironclad guarantees merely allows Russia to reinforce and prepare for future offensives at a more opportune time.
The UK and other allies quickly distanced themselves from Macron’s proposal, which should not have been floated in the first place.
4. Turkey’s Increasing Role In Europe’s Security.
One of the more notable developments was the presence of Turkey at the summit.
This was not merely an EU gathering but a broader European coalition, and Turkey’s participation is highly significant.
In recent weeks, Turkey has taken a much more pro-Ukraine stance compared to the U.S.
Unlike Washington, Ankara has consistently reaffirmed its support for Ukraine’s full territorial integrity and has voted in Ukraine’s favor at the United Nations.
Erdogan personally welcomed Zelensky with great respect, in contrast to the dismissive treatment he received in Washington.
Turkey is also reopening negotiations with the EU regarding its own membership, and its defense industry is playing an increasingly critical role in European security.
Its involvement in this summit signaled Ankara’s growing influence as a potential security guarantor for both Ukraine, and for Europe in general.
Overall, the UK once again demonstrated strong leadership in support of Ukraine, and the summit provided an important moment for reaffirming European unity.
However, and as discussed above, there were several critical shortcomings.
Europe must recover its strategic leverage, take decisive financial and military actions, and avoid the damaging narrative that without the U.S., nothing is possible.
The time for hesitation is over.
Well done. I know this business of Turkey into the EU has been going on for decades as long as I can remember. I also know some of the holdups over the years were due to lack of democracy in Turkey (Turkiye!). At this point, we need them, and admittance, as slow as the process is, should be forthcoming. They also house many refugees that Europe does not want. They are also interested in the Gaza situation and Syrian affairs, as you have written.