European leaders rush to us to help Ukraine avoid “capitulation”

European leaders may have rushed to Washington ostensibly to launch a protective arm around President Zelensky and die any repetition of the ignition of the February Oval Office.

But their real objective is to prevent US President Donald Trump from threatening European security in the long term after his brutal change in courses on the best way to put an end to the war in Ukraine.

Not only did Trump fell calls to a cease -fire as a prior condition for long -term peace discussions, but also – diplomats – clearly indicated that he had no intention of imposing new economic sanctions on Russia.

In short, itinerant European heads of government – as well as EU and NATO leaders – want to avoid not only confrontation, but also capitulation.

President Macron of France was the last to use the word C, saying on Sunday: “There is only one state offering a peace which would be a capitulation: Russia.”

It takes a lot for heads of government to upset their short -term schedules – especially in August – when some are on vacation.

The French chief appreciated water sports on the Riviera. Italian chief Georgia Meloni was in Greece.

But that was the scale of President Trump’s strategy change after meeting President Putin – and the potential threat that results for Europe – that European leaders have quickly changed their plans.

The officials say that Meloni was the first to invite himself, followed closely by Macron, after which he became inevitable that others should also go.

The leaders spent the weekend working on phones, holding no less than five separate group cats.

Their concern was Trump’s decision to modify the diplomatic objective positions after meeting the Russian chief in Alaska.

Some officials believe that the enormous impact of these two decisions – which overthrew months of Western strategy – has been undervalued. The two movements moved the American position more closely in favor of Russia.

“Things have evolved very significantly and fairly quickly to a calendar that no one expected,” said a European official.

“The United States sees it as a moment to strike while the iron is hot. Our question is we trying to do here?”

They added: “The European position has long been that Putin has been having to show a real desire to bypass a table and stop the war, and that would imply a ceasefire. But since Friday, we have started from that. The question is now knowing how we can get out of today. It is a moment of extreme danger.”

The objective of European leaders, say the diplomats, is to move the reflection on the White House on two questions.

First, the idea that peace can be made simply by Ukraine giving up the donbas in Russia. And two, that it is not only about the future of Ukraine.

“This is fundamentally the security of our continent,” said a British diplomat.

In other words, any discussion on security guarantees – as part of a final agreement – would consist in ensuring the broader safety of Europe and not only of Ukraine.

This means convincing Trump of two things: one, that questions about territory and security guarantees cannot be separated, and two, that security guarantees must be more than verbal or textual promises.

American negotiators have spoken of giving Ukraine still poorly defined in the style of NATO that the West would come with kyiv against the future Russian aggression.

“No one is clear what Trump means a security guarantee,” said an official.

“He thinks he simply says to Putin” don’t attack “. It’s not good enough for Ukraine or for us.”

Europeans, rather, should argue that the security of Ukraine will only be guaranteed allowing its army to remain strong, with long -term and substantial military and financial support.

This would include American weapons bought by the Europeans and endowed from Ukraine, as well as the continuous Ukrainian access to American intelligence.

By definition, anything that would exclude Russian requests from the demilitarization of Ukraine.

The risk for Europeans today is that they push Trump too strong, that he thinks he is the victim of intimidation and that the meetings are going badly.

The European delegation was launched together at the last minute.

It is – an official said – “quite heavy”, and some differ in the quantity of Europe that Europe should commit to the future security of Ukraine.

What role a future strength of “comfort” in Europe could play in a post-conflict Ukraine remains uncertain.

Thus, the European objective today is perhaps to slow down things and calm the conversation with the fever of landing transactions which should really be part of the end of the negotiation.

For some, it would be the cart in front of the horse.

Instead, European leaders can seek progress during a possible trilateral summit with Trump, Zelensky and Putin; the sculpture of certain general principles of any future agreement; And how to have discussions on discussions deciding on the location and the framework of any negotiation.

And above all, if this can only happen when a ceasefire has been agreed.