How the Paris summit exposed Europe's divide, who could lead it, and what comes next
One of Europe's biggest problems in times of global crisis remains a lack of leadership. And as long as Olaf Scholz remains the German Chancellor, the leader of Europe's largest economy, this problem is unlikely to go away.
This was one of the key takeaways from the emergency summit of European leaders in Paris on Monday evening, where they gathered to outline steps to navigate the crisis that the US has sharply escalated. Last week, President Trump called Putin without coordinating with Kyiv, while Vice President Vance in Munich declared a values-based rupture between the US and Europe.
The Paris summit was not a complete failure, but it also failed to achieve its most crucial goal.
Read more about why the Paris meeting mattered, what happened there, and what did not in the article by Sergiy Sydorenko, European Pravda's editor – The coalition of the brave and Olaf Scholz: what was agreed and what became a problem at the Paris summit.
The gathering of European leaders in Paris on Monday evening was truly urgent. President Macron began organising it late last week after US Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech finally pushed European leaders out of their usual comfort zone.
The summit brought together EU leadership, NATO’s Secretary General, and the continent’s largest economies (excluding Türkiye and Russia): Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands.
Poland, the eighth-largest economy in Europe, was also present, along with Denmark, which plays a key role in the informal "Coalition of the Brave."
Ahead of the Munich Security Conference, the US signaled to European countries that they must prepare for real action to ensure security in Europe.
At the core of this message was the question of potential European military participation in a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine if this becomes part of post-war security guarantees.
The Paris meeting did not yield a breakthrough on this issue, nor was it expected to.
Even leaders who support the idea of peacekeepers made very cautious statements after the talks, emphasising that it is still too early to discuss specifics. That is true since no specific decisions on peacekeepers could be made without knowing the key parameters of such a mission.
So, there was no reason to expect sensational decisions on peacekeepers in Paris. Instead, the summit aimed to discreetly align negotiating positions (including on peacekeepers) and demonstrate European unity.
And this is where European leaders failed spectacularly. Mainly thanks to Olaf Scholz.
After the summit, the German Chancellor publicly declared that Europe is divided.
He criticised his colleagues for preparing a peacekeeping mission, calling these ideas "completely premature and highly inappropriate." He also admitted he was "a bit irritated" by debates that he felt were "untimely and misplaced" during the leaders' meeting.
Scholz was not alone in sowing division. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni added to the lack of unity by arriving an hour late to the summit and later criticising it as "anti-Trump."
The end result? A summit where no formal decisions were made, and where a key participant publicly complained about irreconcilable differences on a crucial issue.
A clearer illustration of Europe’s unreadiness for negotiations would be hard to find.
However, there was one area of success: European leaders appear to be making progress on a plan to increase defence spending and support Ukraine. While the total cost remains undisclosed, journalists estimate it at around €700 billion, an enormous sum for Ukraine, though not all of it would go to Kyiv.
The Paris meeting also revealed who could emerge as Europe's leader in this crisis.