What Does The Ukraine Ceasefire Mean For Europe?

(MENAFN- The Conversation) Several weeks have now passed since the infamously heated argument between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump on February 28 in the Oval Office. Zelensky has now accepted the partial ceasefire demanded by the US, paving the way for negotiations to reach a peace agreement with Russia.

Perhaps feeling vindicated by Trump's rhetoric, and with the upper hand on the battlefield, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been reluctant to accept the US proposal for a full cessation of hostilities. So far, he has only agreed to halt attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

Putin is most likely weighing up the possibility of an eventual collapse of the Ukrainian front. At the very least, he will be seeking to consolidate his advantage, and to negotiate from a position of strength that would allow him to impose conditions on peace negotiations. As a bare minimum, these conditions would include keeping occupied Ukrainian territory, keeping Ukraine out of Western institutions like the EU and Nato, and avoiding the deployment of Nato forces.

However, even if a negotiation were to give him all this, the underlying geopolitical issue that drove Putin to war would be far from resolved. Controlling Ukraine is a cornerstone of Russia's territorial bulwark, which it considers essential for its security in the west.

However much it now appears the victor, Russia is far from having achieved the aims of its 2022 invasion. A peace that does not fully satisfy its security needs will, for Russia, be a bad peace, and will leave questions open. As a natural consequence, it is prudent to prepare in order to avoid, or confront, further conflict in the future.

Negotiating without Europe

With the exception of brief visits to the White House by a several of its leaders , Europe has been left out of negotiating efforts. It has been ignored on an issue that, if only for geographical reasons, concerns it directly. This disregard shows how little the continent matters to its North American partner, and forces European states to face existential questions.

In fairness, Russia harbours no imperialist intentions (though one can never truly know how it would act if it were to find a clear path to the Atlantic), but it does want to restore the security shield it lost at the end of the Cold War. We cannot rule out the possibility that, in the future, it might insist on this if the geostrategic conditions are right. This is a source of acute concern for policy-makers in Eastern European states, particularly those of the Baltic republics.

On its own, Europe cannot guarantee Ukraine the support it received from the West when the US was involved in the war effort. From a pragmatic point of view, it has little choice. It will probably accept the US effort to end the war, trying to make its voice heard in the process and, if Russia accepts it, go as far as deploying peacekeeping troops .

Read more: Are Ukrainians ready for ceasefire and concessions? Here's what the polls say

European strategic autonomy

In the meantime, the continent should not let up in the effort it has begun to strengthen its defence capabilities. It needs this not only as a deterrent, but also as the only way to maintain US interest in Nato, which remains vital to European security.

Assuming there is no going back on the project of political integration, Europe needs sufficient, credible military power (and power projection) if its voice is to be heard in an increasingly harsh international arena.

Read more: Europe's rearmament is moving fast – it must not overlook these three vital areas

Ongoing efforts to achieve real strategic autonomy must also cultivate and strengthen the transatlantic link. Neither the US nor Europe has an interest in damaging, let alone severing, their relations. If that were to happen, the US nuclear umbrella would disappear, opening the way for a future full of worrying unknowns in which European states might fragment, and seek solutions to their security problems alone.

This could, in turn, lead to all manner of unpredictable scenarios, including the end of the EU itself, nuclear proliferation on the continent, an adversarial relationship with the US.

Europe must prepare for a future in which it has to confront the Russian threat without the unconditional support it has hitherto received from the United States. This vital if it is to continue accepting the sacrosanct sovereignty of states, and their right to decide the path they want to follow without interference. This means that it cannot surrender to the idea that Russia has the right to a security sphere of its own.

It would, however, do well to maintain the shield it has deployed to the east since 2014, both for deterrence purposes and as a show of resolve and collective commitment to continental security.

Europe must rise to this historic moment and seize the opportunity to grow as a global actor. However, it has to navigate carefully between the icebergs of the European project's deterioration and the United States' alienation from the continent's security. It must also contend with the possibility of a definitive break from Moscow, one that precludes the rebuilding of a framework of understanding between the two powers that, if not now, will be fundamental in the future.

This article was originally published in Spanish

MENAFN24032025000199003603ID1109349554