Peacekeeping troops: what can Europeans agree on?

Bulgaria's government has spoken out against deploying peacekeeping troops to Ukraine. This is a mistake, argues Club Z:

“Participation in foreign missions is essential for training troops, also with regard to cooperating with other armed forces from NATO states or third countries. In the case of Ukraine we're talking about a potential peacekeeping mission, not a hot war. Let's not forget that Bulgarian soldiers take part in such missions on a voluntary basis. Many of them are motivated by the high pay and the opportunity to gain professional experience and cooperate with military personnel from other countries. Participation in foreign missions also boosts Bulgaria's international reputation.”

Público is disappointed:

“The least one could have expected from Paris is that the European leaders attending the meeting would commit to two or three urgent measures: a rapid increase in defence spending; finding the means to boost support for Ukraine and bolster it for future negotiations; and establishing a military force to provide security guarantees to Ukraine in the event of a peace agreement. ... Europe is running out of time and against the illusions of the past. Is it united enough? Probably not. Paris has brought very little that is new.”

Exposing the rifts by holding an improvised summit was the wrong tactic, La Stampa concludes:

“The response to US Vice President JD Vance's statements regarding a supposed European disaster in terms of tactics and values came from a French president caught up in a full-blown crisis of consensus. ... The summit was attended by a handful of very different countries (one of which is no longer even in the EU). Among the participants was a beleaguered German chancellor whose statements are valid for another week, at most. ... Diversity of opinion is all very well, and so is creating multi-speed formulas when the situation demands it, but nothing seems as inappropriate and out of context as the summit that just ended in Paris.”

El Mundo also calls for more unity and strength:

“The summit conveyed an image of half-hearted unity that weakens Europe vis-à-vis Trump, who rules according to the law of might is right, because it revealed the cracks in unity regarding the question of sending peacekeepers to Ukraine. Whereas British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he would join the coalition of the willing, Germany, Poland and Spain showed reluctance. What became crystal clear in Paris is that Europe has grasped that it must take charge of its own security. ... The EU urgently needs to accelerate its defence investments and strengthen political unity, which has been weakened by the crises in France and Germany. The formation of a strong government in Berlin will be key to that leadership.”

The British prime minister may have promised too much with his pledge to send troops to Ukraine, writes The Independent:

“Starmer hopes to mollify Donald Trump's dismissive attitude to underperforming Nato allies and put Britain at the heart of any Allied peace mission. The big question for us is whether our armed forces are numerous and well equipped enough to provide a serious contingent to any peacekeeping force along the ceasefire line. ... Talking 'big' about Britain's leadership when our forces cannot put more than a tiny contingent into Ukraine and lack reinforcements if things go wrong is a recipe for disaster. Peacekeeping should be a continuation of an effective policy, not a substitute for it.”

Political scientist Ramūnas Vilpišauskas calls for bold action in 15min:

“It makes little sense to keep emphasising that everything should have happened yesterday. Now is the time to seek coordinated measures. If an agreement can't be reached among all EU states, a group of willing countries - Germany, France, Poland and the Nordic and Baltic states - could lead the way. The geopolitical crisis could also provide the impetus for the EU to reform its economic policy, remove barriers in the single market and channel more resources into defence. ... This year could be decisive.”

Helsingin Sanomat can understand why certain European states are hesitant about sending troops to Ukraine:

“In Finland, too, the debate on troop deployments will soon begin. The deliberations are already underway, but it's difficult to make decisions right now. ... If the US were to leave the European armed forces to their own devices, these could become a practice target for the Russians or a political pawn in their hands. Finland is not the only country that must consider whether it can afford to protect Ukraine at the expense of its own defence capabilities.”

Europe can still exert its influence, Libération insists:

“Even if it's late there's still time for the Europeans to react, close ranks and finally construct a European defence. British PM Keir Starmer seems ready to return to the fold of Europe, Emmanuel Macron has many flaws but is a fervent European, the future German Chancellor cannot be any weaker than Olaf Scholz (let's just hope that the far right doesn't make a surprise breakthrough on Sunday), and Donald Tusk's Poland is going full throttle, both militarily and economically. Finally, China, which takes a dim view of the rapprochement between the US and Russia, will certainly not remain passive. So Europe still has a few aces up its sleeve. That said, it must play them very quickly.”

NRC calls on Europeans to fight for its survival:

“Europe's late awakening to this new world is now taking its toll. ... The obvious conclusion after the latest events is that the US will no longer provide a security umbrella for its European allies. ... To avoid being erased from world history, European countries will have to invest in European defence and a European defence industry on a far larger scale. They must not only guarantee the existence of Ukraine as an independent state, but also make Europe itself less vulnerable in the emerging new world order.”

Český rozhlas warns against making decisions about Ukraine without consulting Ukraine:

“We Czechs know from our own history that such things do not end well. On 29 September 1938 a delegation from Prague was sitting in the next room in Munich when Italy, France and Britain agreed with Hitler that Czechoslovakia would give him the Sudetenland and peace would prevail. Less than half a year later Hitler was in Prague Castle and in another six months he started World War II. To prevent history from repeating itself, the EU must not allow Russia to get away with shifting its borders. But it can only prevent that if it unites. ... Otherwise we may as well just click our heels together.”

The key to a future peace solution does not lie in territorial cessions by Ukraine, writes political analyst Valentin Naumescu in centrulpolitic.ro:

“This war has an aggressor (Russia) and a victim (Ukraine), and the peace agreements must reflect this responsibility for the invasion. ... Contrary to what many people believe, it is not the territories but the security guarantees that are the top priority. They are far more important than the territories because the future of Ukraine is at stake here. ... President Trump also realises this when he talks about 'lasting peace'. We shouldn't forget that the Minsk agreements negotiated by France and Germany during the Merkel-Hollande era (2014 and 2015) were a failure precisely because they didn't offer Ukraine any security guarantees.”

Večernji list sees the US at a crossroads:

“If Trump believes that terms once coined by the US - such as 'free world' and the inviolability of democracy - now belong to the past, then his path is definitively diverging from that of Europe. Because however inadequate it may be in other respects, the EU cannot give in on the inviolability of borders or allowing aggressors to be rewarded, because that is a matter of survival.”