- Статьи
- World
- Coalition of the Waiting: how the Europeans are imitating participation in the negotiations on Ukraine
Coalition of the Waiting: how the Europeans are imitating participation in the negotiations on Ukraine
The declaration by Kiev, London and Paris of their intention to deploy multinational forces in Ukraine is a step towards escalating the conflict, Russian Foreign Ministry Ambassador—at-Large Rodion Miroshnik told Izvestia. Ukraine's European partners are trying to issue such documents as part of the final agreements to resolve the crisis, but they are not involved in negotiations with Russia, he said. On January 6, the Ukrainian delegation held talks in Paris with France and the United Kingdom, and the next day with representatives of the United States. Kiev and the Europeans are trying to shift attention from issues of a political settlement in general to issues of security guarantees for Ukraine, experts say. At the same time, no one talks about what security guarantees there will be for Russia and other states in the region, in particular, Belarus.
The European contingent in Ukraine
In Europe, there is renewed talk of plans to deploy Western troops in Ukraine after the end of the conflict. The key supporters of this venture are still the United Kingdom and France, who present this initiative as some kind of security guarantee for Kiev. For Russia, such intentions are a step towards the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis.
— The direct participants in the Eurotroika negotiations (Great Britain, Germany, France. — Ed.) and the EU are not. They try to pretend that meetings with their participation are the main venue where agreements are reached, but this is completely wrong. There have been no dialogues or negotiations on this topic with the Russian side. That is, in fact, there is a radicalization of the approaches of one of the parties to the conflict, nothing more," Rodion Miroshnik, the Russian Foreign Ministry's ambassador—at-large for crimes of the Kiev regime, told Izvestia. — Their main aspiration is to try to submit the document they signed as a result of the agreement. And only in the "small print" they write that this is a declaration of intent.
On the evening of January 6, Vladimir Zelensky, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer signed a declaration in Paris on their intention to deploy multinational forces in Ukraine after the end of the conflict. Starmer noted that the document "paves the way for the creation of a legal framework within which British, French and troops of other partners could operate on the territory of Ukraine." The document actually sets out the parameters of the possible presence of foreign forces in the country: it is about the creation of military bases, the protection of Ukraine's airspace and maritime space, and the system of interaction between the multinational contingent and the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
The leaders of France and Great Britain have previously spoken about their readiness to send a "peacekeeping contingent" to the country after the end of the conflict. However, the idea lacked public support from the United States. However, it was not possible to achieve it this time either: Washington did not sign a joint communique with Europe and Ukraine on participation in the "peace forces". Following the meeting of the "coalition of the willing," the special representative of the US President, Steve Witkoff, announced only "significant progress" in several areas of work, including the framework program for security guarantees and the development plan for Ukraine.
Belgium has announced its intention to support France and the United Kingdom. Italy, Croatia, the Czech Republic, and even Poland, one of Kiev's main supporters, opposed the initiative to send their contingents within the framework of the multinational force. Germany admitted that after the end of hostilities, Germany could deploy its forces, however, only "on the territory of NATO adjacent to Ukraine.
— From a legal point of view, this is just a declaration of intent, which represents certain intentions and approaches that are not legally binding and do not consolidate any obligations, at least for France, Germany or other EU states that participated in this meeting, — said Miroshnik.
The course of negotiations and guarantees of security for Ukraine
Moscow opposes the presence of a foreign contingent in the neighboring country. Kiev has consistently demanded to provide it with security guarantees by analogy with Article 5 of the NATO Charter on collective defense. The Russian Federation is not against providing Ukraine with Western guarantees, but in a way that does not infringe on Russia's interests. By the way, Vladimir Putin noted that even before the meeting with Donald Trump in Alaska last August, Russia was ready for "certain compromises."
Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump during a meeting in Alaska
"In Anchorage, we agreed and practically agreed with the proposals of US President Donald Trump," Vladimir Putin said earlier. — Therefore, to say that we reject something is absolutely incorrect and has no grounds.
Since the meeting in Alaska, when the leaders of European countries and Vladimir Zelensky arrived in Washington almost immediately, the same algorithm of actions of European capitals and Kiev has been observed, Andrei Kortunov, an expert at the Valdai Club, noted in a conversation with Izvestia.
— This algorithm boils down to shifting attention from issues of political settlement in general to issues of security guarantees for Ukraine specifically. At the same time, no one talks about what guarantees the security of Russia and other states in the region will be — for Belarus, for example. It all comes down to improving the political situation of Kiev and its European partners as much as possible," he said.
The expert recalled that during the negotiations in Anchorage, Trump acknowledged that a truce without a political settlement is not enough, since it contains threats of a resumption of conflict at any moment.
—Yes, this is, of course, a revision of the preliminary, but still existing Russian-American agreements on how this conflict can be ended,— said Andrei Kortunov, commenting on the document signed by Zelensky, Macron and Starmer.
On January 7, Vladimir Zelensky went to Cyprus for talks with President Nikos Christodoulides. On January 1, the country became the chairman of the EU Council for six months, and the Ukrainian leader probably expects to gain more support from Nicosia, which advocates further enlargement of the European Union.
The republic's membership in the community is one of the points of the peace settlement plan currently being developed.: As reported by The Washington Post, the plan assumes that Kiev will join the EU by 2027. The Ukrainian side considers its accession to the union to be one of the guarantees of security in the event of an end to the conflict.
Natalia Eremina, a professor at St. Petersburg State University, believes that Cyprus' presidency of the EU Council is unlikely to be able to shift the focus in the EU from discussing the possible deployment of a multinational contingent to Ukraine on the country's accession to the EU.
"These issues are not related to who is the president of the European Union," she told Izvestia.
At the same time, Ukraine continues an active dialogue with the United States. On January 7, negotiations with the American delegation were held in Paris, following the meeting of the coalition of the willing. Zelensky said the parties discussed "the most difficult issues" from the basic framework for ending the conflict — on the Zaporizhia NPP and territories.
Recall that the United States proposes to use the nuclear power plant for three with the Russian Federation, and Zelensky demands that only the United States and Ukraine use it. As for the territories, Kiev is being pressured to withdraw troops from Donbass, while Ukraine resolutely refuses. Kiev's European partners are solely in favor of strengthening its negotiating positions and, unlike the United States, are against compromises with Russia. It is worth noting that the Trump administration does not support the European Commission's desire to transfer a "reparation" loan to Ukraine secured by frozen Russian assets.
Increasing contradictions between the United States and Europe over Greenland
It is not easy for the countries of Europe and the United States to find common approaches not only in the Ukrainian settlement, but also on the issue of the status of the Danish autonomy of Greenland. Donald Trump has repeatedly stated the need for Greenland to join the United States. Even during his first term, he offered to buy Greenland, and in March 2025, he expressed confidence that it could be annexed, threatening Copenhagen with trade duties if refused. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen rejects these claims, stressing that the island is part of the kingdom.
Since the beginning of 2026, the United States has once again begun talking about its intention to establish control over the largest island on Earth. On January 5, Donald Trump said that Denmark would not be able to protect Greenland on its own. The United States needs Greenland "from the point of view of national security." The EU reacted very negatively to this. For example, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrault announced preparations for a response to possible US actions. The leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Great Britain and Denmark issued a collective statement in which they stated that "Greenland belongs to its people," and only Denmark, together with the authorities of the autonomy, should make decisions on issues concerning them.
Meanwhile, the Western media has already begun to speculate on scenarios for establishing US control over Greenland. According to the Times, this can be done in four ways. The first is the use of force to capture Greenland, which will cause international condemnation and potential conflict with Denmark. The second option is annexation through negotiations and financial assistance, which will take time but will be less controversial. The third is the use of sanctions or trade restrictions against Denmark to create economic difficulties in Greenland. And finally, the fourth: support for cultural and educational programs to increase interest in rapprochement with the United States among the population of Greenland.
At the same time, according to The Wall Street Journal, the head of the US State Department, Marco Rubio, told members of Congress that the harsh rhetoric of the White House is aimed at pressuring Denmark to start negotiations on the fate of the island — and in fact, Trump wants to buy Greenland, and is not preparing a military operation.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
