Between Rhetoric and Reality: The Summit and Europe’s Search for a Strategy

Europe convened yet another high-level summit yesterday, as the continent’s leaders scrambled to adjust their security frameworks in response to Washington’s shifting stance on Ukraine and its thawing relations with Russia. The urgency was clear—this was no ordinary summit, but rather an attempt to consolidate European resolve in an era of uncertainty.

With full attendance from all European Union leaders, as well as Ukraine’s President Zelensky, the EU sought to present a strong, united front. Their objective? To reaffirm previous commitments to Ukraine, strengthen defense coordination, and chart a course forward in the face of growing fractures within the transatlantic alliance.

The Brussels gathering did not materialize in isolation. It followed a series of smaller, more selective meetings in London and Paris (twice), where key European players sought to coordinate their positions ahead of the broader summit. These preliminary discussions signaled that Europe’s internal power centers were already maneuvering to shape the bloc’s future direction.

However, unity on paper does not always translate into strategic clarity. Beneath the surface, the meeting reflected deeper fault lines: Europe’s struggle to balance its dependence on the U.S. with the realization that Washington is moving on, leaving the EU to navigate an increasingly volatile security landscape on its own.

Precursors to the Summit

Macron’s New Era: Confrontation, Security, and European Autonomy

Leading up to the summit, French President Emmanuel Macron delivered his New Era speech that signaled a hardening of Europe’s stance toward Russia while simultaneously casting doubt on the reliability of the United States. The address, which Moscow swiftly condemned as confrontational, framed the continent’s security situation as the most precarious it has been in decades, with Europe entering a new era defined by threats on multiple fronts, where peace was no longer a given and the world was growing increasingly unstable.

Macron's speech placed Russia at the center of Europe’s security crisis, warning that Moscow’s ambitions would not necessarily stop at Ukraine, citing the Russian expansion of its military capacity, both in manpower and weaponry, to reinforce the argument that the conflict was not merely about Ukraine’s sovereignty but about broader European security.

While acknowledging that diplomatic initiatives were necessary, Macron insisted that peace could not be achieved by abandoning Ukraine or by allowing Moscow to dictate the terms of any settlement, adding that European security decisions must not be made in Washington or in Moscow. He reaffirmed that even if the U.S. remained engaged for now, Europe had to prepare for a future where it might have to defend itself independently.

To that end, Macron stressed the need for massive investment in European defense and deterrence, framing it not only as a military necessity but as part of a larger strategy to reindustrialize the continent and reduce its dependency on external powers, welcoming increased defense spending by some EU states.

In a clear bid to position France in a leadership position in the new European framework, he framed the French army as the most effective in Europe, and one with nuclear capacity that he stated could be used as a continental nuclear deterrent in lieu of the shifting American position, something that Moscow deemed quite concerning.

The statement, on the eve of the summit, was designed to place France ahead of its chief rivals, the UK and Germany, in the race for European leadership, and at the same time generate momentum for the preexisting French strategy of European security independence that Macron repeatedly called for throughout his term. Until now, the political climate had not justified such a transformation, one that would levy heavy burdens on European citizens who would have to bear the costs of these military upgrades, but the shifting global order, the war in Ukraine, and uncertainty surrounding the U.S. had now made the case for a new European defense paradigm impossible to ignore.

Ursula von der Leyen’s ‘ReArm Europe’ Initiative

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also made waves ahead of the summit with her unveiling of the ‘ReArm Europe’ plan, an ambitious strategy to transform Europe’s defense sector and break long-standing taboos around military investment.

The initiative, which aims to mobilize an unprecedented €800 billion -more than double Europe’s current defense spending-, is framed as a necessary response to increasing global instability and Europe’s historical underinvestment in defense. Von der Leyen argued that the war in Ukraine had exposed dangerous gaps in the continent’s ability to defend itself, making it imperative for Europe to take swift and decisive action.

This proposal aligned with the European scramble to upgrade its defense capacities and achieve security independence and uses the threat of Russian expansion into Europe -a threat greatly exaggerated by European leaders at this stage- to mobilize the political will and resources necessary to implement it. Largely aligning with the French president’s vision, the plan attempts to circumvent existing hurdles within the bloc’s bureaucratic structure that impeded previous calls for upgraded investment in security by leveraging the Russian threat.

U.S.

Even as European leaders debated their next steps, the United States was undergoing its own recalibration. In Washington, Secretary of State Marco Rubio explicitly referred to Ukraine as a proxy war with Russia—a characterization supported by Moscow. The U.S. also halted intelligence sharing and military assistance to Ukraine shortly after the now infamous Oval Office spat between Zelensky and Trump.

As Europe continues to push for an unyielding stance against Moscow, the U.S. is already engaging with both Russia and Ukraine, making it evident that the shift in American priorities toward negotiation rather than indefinite military support were not just talk.

The EU Summit: A Show of Unity

The Brussels summit brought together all twenty-seven European Union leaders alongside Ukrainian President Zelensky in what was intended to be a decisive reaffirmation of Europe's commitment to Ukraine. Notably absent from the meeting were any external partners—NATO, the United States, or other Western allies—an important signal that this initiative was framed as a matter of European security, rather than a broader NATO-led effort. In the face of shifting U.S. policy and an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape, Europe sought to present itself as a unified and capable actor.

The summit itself was largely predictable. Broad agreements were reached on bolstering European defense capabilities, and the EU reiterated its commitment to Ukraine with Hungary’s Prime Minister Orbán as the lone holdout on the issue of Ukraine.

The final communiqué reasserted the familiar principle that no negotiations about Ukraine should take place without Ukraine at the table, which has become a mantra in Europe -and frankly one that makes sense. Added to that was the insistence on no negotiations about European security without Europe, which is a direct response to the growing perception that the U.S. is already moving ahead in talks with Russia and Ukraine without meaningful European input. It also reaffirmed Ukraine’s right to determine its own geopolitical trajectory, supporting Ukraine’s reform efforts on its path toward EU accession.

The EU sought to establish new ground rules for any ceasefire, emphasizing that it must be part of a broader peace agreement and must come with robust security guarantees to deter further Russian aggression. The bloc also recommitted itself to stepping up economic and military pressure on Russia, though this too raises unresolved questions—chief among them, how effective European support -economic or military- would be in the absence of full U.S. backing.

One of the tangible outcomes of the summit was the pledge to disburse €30.6 billion in financial support for Ukraine, with €18.1 billion of that sum to be drawn from profits generated by frozen Russian assets. The second section of the communiqué focused on European defense and the continent’s efforts to become more sovereign and responsible for its own security, emphasizing the need to reduce strategic dependencies, strengthen European defense and secure its eastern front.

Behind the show of unity however, the undercurrent of rivalry between European powers is becoming more apparent. It will likely accelerate at the next EU summit, due to be held in two weeks, to follow up on the outcomes of this one. While the UK is no longer a member of the Union, it still seeks to retain a leadership role rivaling that of France and Germany as evidenced by the London summit, and we can expect further moves by Starmer to seek more involvement in the European discussion moving forward, and by Berlin once its government is formed.

Signals of Strength, Shadows of Uncertainty

The Brussels summit successfully projected European cohesion and unity, with Europe finally forced to recognize security self-reliance as a necessity rather than a luxury. After years of deferring to U.S. leadership on defense, European leaders can no longer ignore the reality that Washington may no longer be a reliable ally given the stark shift in positions from one administration to another over the past eight years. Despite the cohesion, there is still significant ongoing discussion on various topics related to the collective efforts, including the seizure of Russian frozen assets to offset the costs of the war due to concerns by some capitals about the repercussions for trust in the European financial systems and the effect on the Euro.

Europe’s tunnel vision on Russia however remains strong. Despite the stark shift in the geopolitical realities on the ground, it has not adapted its position beyond escalation and has continued to refuse any meaningful engagement with Moscow. European leaders across the board -with few exceptions- are adopting escalating stances toward Russia as a means to position themselves as continental leaders in the wake of Washington’s pivot on engagement.

While it is understandable from a political point of view for European leaders to seek to leverage the war with Russia to drive defense spending and upgrades that were difficult to justify before Trump shifted the U.S. position on Russia, failing to engage with Moscow at this stage only serves to further distance Europe from achieving its long-term goals. While the U.S. already has parallel channels of communication open with Russia and Ukraine at the highest levels, Europe is self-ostracizing by only engaging with Ukraine.

European leaders are operating in an echo chamber of self-supporting narratives. The last five high level summits, two in Paris, one in London, one in Kyiv and the most recent in Brussels, were all held among essentially the same group of leaders reaffirming the same points and mutually supporting their already aligned points of view. None of those meetings or engagements resulted in anything other than the crystallizing positions of the participants because there is no input from differing points of view on potential approaches, a natural outcome of operating in an isolated echo chamber. With every meeting needing to produce outcomes above and beyond the ones before it, the trend is likely to continue if European leaders do not figure out a way to disrupt this flow.

On defense the -belated- European push for independence is a step in the right direction. The EU reliance on the U.S. and NATO frameworks for its defense over the past decades, has led to erosion of continental defense autonomy despite existing frameworks like the Common Security and Defense Policy and the European Defense Agency. However, attempting to frame in solely in the context of the Russia Ukraine war is not sustainable for long term commitment by governments; if the war tapers and eventually ends with a peace agreement, the public appetite for massive defense expenditures is likely to erode, making the current trajectory politically fragile.

Using alarmist narratives like a potential Russian invasion of Europe, easily rebuffed by the fact that Russia is already having trouble with just Ukraine much less multiple European fronts, and more so European NATO fronts that would see the triggering of NATO’s article 5 against it, hold little logical relevance. Framing it instead as a grand strategic pivot to counter the receding American role and foster interoperability and ownership of continental defense would better position European governments to sustain the momentum and effort over the long term.

From this perspective, it is possible that as a result of framing defense spending upgrades and necessities primarily in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, European countries will find themselves with a vested interest in prolonging the conflict in order to sustain support for elevated defense expenditures and the impact on national budgets.

Russia’s Response: A Familiar Script with New Openings

Moscow’s reaction to the Brussels summit followed a now-familiar pattern—dismissing the EU’s actions as provocative, warning of militarization, and reinforcing its own strategic posture. The Kremlin criticized the confrontational rhetoric coming from European leaders, particularly Macron’s speech framing Russia as an existential threat and von der Leyen’s push for a massive expansion of European defense spending. Beyond verbal condemnation, Russia responded with force. In the immediate aftermath of the summit, Moscow launched strikes on Ukraine, taking advantage of the pause in U.S. support to press its advantage.

Even as Russia criticizes Europe’s militarization, the Kremlin understands the short-term constraints of European defense coordination. While the EU summit pushed for more European-led military initiatives, there is limited interoperability or operational cohesion outside of NATO structures. This means that, despite the rhetoric about European self-reliance, the EU’s military effectiveness remains largely tied to the U.S..

Since Washington is now moving toward diplomacy, Moscow recognizes that European leaders are, in many ways, constrained by American priorities. Russia’s engagement with the U.S. has already begun, and the fact that Europe is still debating its long-term defense posture only reinforces Moscow’s calculation that the real negotiations on the short term can happen outside of Brussels’ direct influence.

Russia also sees the opportunity presented by Washington’s shift toward direct talks. The upcoming U.S.-Ukraine meeting in Saudi Arabia is happening without European mediation or leadership, signaling that Washington is not waiting for EU involvement to shape a post-war settlement. From Moscow’s perspective, this scenario, where European leaders continue issuing statements while real negotiations move forward without them, is very favorable.

Chekhov’s Gun

Named after Anton Chekhov, the Russian playwright, Chekhov’s Gun is a literary principle that dictates that if a weapon appears in the first act, it must eventually be used by the third. Applied to the current trajectory of European security policy, it poses an important problem. The first act of this unfolding drama has already been set: an arms race between Europe and Russia, escalating rhetoric, and unprecedented defense spending. If this continues unchecked, the critical question becomes: what happens in the third act?

The problem with mutual deterrence over time between close neighbors is that unless the underlying geopolitical tensions are resolved, there is an increasing risk that the military buildup itself becomes a catalyst for conflict rather than a safeguard against it.

Europe’s current posture is built on ideological posturing rather than pragmatic strategy. Instead of focusing on clear strategic imperatives, European governments have chosen to lean into ideological narratives, presenting Russia as an existential threat while sidestepping any serious engagement on diplomatic off-ramps. The result is a policy that feeds itself: the more leaders exaggerate the Russian threat, the more justification they have to continue expanding defense budgets. Yet, the larger this buildup becomes, the greater the risk that the perceived threat morphs into a self-fulfilling prophecy as Russia increasingly adopts a similar policy toward Europe.

European governments now find themselves in a bind. On one hand, they need to sustain the political narrative that justifies massive defense increases. On the other, they must contend with the fact that escalating military postures have consequences—not just in financial terms, but in real security risks. If the arms race continues with no parallel diplomatic stabilization, the likelihood of a crisis spiraling into a broader conflict increases with time.

This is the danger of an unchecked security dilemma. By continuing to build up militaries without a clear exit strategy, European and Russian leaders may find themselves trapped in a scenario where the logic of deterrence gives way to the logic of war. If Chekhov’s Gun is in play, and the first act is already set, the only question that remains is will they figure out a way to stop the gun going off in the third act?

End Game? Europe’s Strategic Paralysis

Europe continues to retreat into familiar patterns of self-affirmation rather than confronting the realities shaping the conflict’s trajectory. While the logical move would be to begin negotiating with Russia, salvage what can still be secured, possibly using Hungary’s Viktor Orbán as a backchannel to open the door to talks, there is no indication that European leaders are willing to take that step. Instead, they remain locked in a cycle of rhetorical escalation, simultaneously backing Ukraine militarily while refusing to engage in the very diplomatic processes that will eventually dictate the war’s conclusion.

As far as Europe is concerned, the United States has become an unreliable strategic partner (despite public statements to the contrary). In light of this, a strategic recalibration would require bringing Russia closer to Europe, rather than allowing it to drift further into alignment with Washington and/or Beijing. But Europe is unlikely to do any of that. Instead, it has opted for the default bureaucratic solution: another summit in a few weeks, another opportunity for the EU to repeat its commitments to Ukraine while avoiding any meaningful policy shifts.

Despite some elements of the European endgame for Ukraine becoming more apparent recently, including long-term access to Ukrainian natural gas and minerals, deepening Ukraine’s economic dependency on Europe, and using this dependency as leverage for post-war integration, the broader vision remains foggy. The approach of refusing to engage with Russia in any meaningful way, even as Washington has already opened parallel channels of communication with Kyiv and Moscow, appears largely self-defeating for Europe’s goals of being at the table and having a say on the outcomes for Ukraine and European security.

As European leaders gather for summits, reaffirming their commitment with their own echo chamber, the U.S. and Russia are actually engaging in the direct negotiations. Washington is slowly but surely pressuring Ukraine into a settlement, while Moscow is maneuvering to shape the terms to its advantage. If Europe fails to shift its strategic outlook, even Ukraine may find itself compelled to move on, taking the material and financial support it can secure from the EU but ultimately making its own strategic decisions based on the realities of U.S.-Russian negotiations.

Europe’s inability to redefine a broader vision and strategy beyond escalatory positions and symbolic declarations is becoming a considerable liability. The window for influence is closing, and without a significant shift in approach, the EU risks being relegated to the role of a financial backer rather than a political architect of the post-war order.