Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street
In the coming days, we will see a shift in strategic alliances across the world. To that end, Macron flew to Washington, followed by Starmer
A recent poll of Le Figaro readers — an audience that leans center-right — found that only 31 percent considered President Macron’s visit to the U.S. useful, while 69 percent considered it ineffective. Similarly, when readers were asked whether we should continue to support Ukraine despite Trump’s recent initiatives, 69 percent were in favor and 31 percent were not.
There’s not exactly a panic in Europe, but there is a feeling of being slighted. It’s not that we weren’t invited anywhere — it’s just that we weren’t officially kept in the loop. Regardless of who’s in charge or who’s to blame, there’s a constant clamor here — dishes rattling from the explosions in chests in Berlin and Paris. «You, sir, seem to be answering to your American constituents», they say. And half of them probably couldn’t even point to Ukraine on a map.
Why did Macron go to Washington? He’s a lame duck who will remain in the Élysée Palace until May 2027, so Trump was only half listening to him. The French president’s idea was that America should at least provide some guarantees for future hypothetical agreements. Otherwise, «it will be nothing more than a truce». However, Trump was more interested in the prospect of securing rights to Ukraine’s mineral resources and did not make any commitments.
Macron behaved with extreme caution, sprinkling his speeches with evasive phrases while not forgetting to say «dear Donald». At the same time, he tried to convey to Trump that Europe — and France in particular — has a different vision of the conflict. In his view, the Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015 failed precisely because they did not include security guarantees. But now Europe is ready to take responsibility.
In other words, the French president raised the issue of certain European units entering Ukrainian territory, but only to monitor the observance of this hypothetical peace agreement (as they say in Paris these days, «inshallah!»).
«We want peace as soon as possible, but we don’t need weak agreements», the French president declared. «These troops will not go to the front or to disputed territories. The Europeans will take their share of the burden and responsibility. We have a solid alliance built over decades. We are united and nothing can stop us».
At this very moment in the UN, the US voted for a resolution that makes it clear that America is more ready to restore relations with Russia than to appease Europe. Where and when have you seen the U.S. vote with North Korea or Iran?
Thus, a complete reshuffling of alliances across the world is about to take place. Washington — at least as of today — is ready to abandon its alliance with Europe in favor of Russia; and what about European security? Only time will tell.
«Macron’s meeting with Trump only made sense to show European countries that they are on their own», analyzes Tara Varma, a specialist in transatlantic relations at the Brookings Institution in Washington. «The United States is not only protecting its own interests, it is already acting like an adversary. All these attempts by Trump look more like blackmail. The only way to counter his onslaught is to present a united front».
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is now joining the process, with a visit to the White House scheduled for the end of the week. This will be the first visit to Washington by the U.S.’s most important ally, and it is expected to produce extraordinary results. So what exactly are they expecting from the Prime Minister’s transatlantic trip — from the dockworkers of Manchester and Birmingham?
«I met with the British prime minister», Trump noted. «He seems like a good guy, but he didn’t do anything».
In Britain, there is a different approach to U.S. policy. The main line of thought among British diplomats is: Trump just wants to make a deal — and that’s what he calls it, by the way. He is a businessman, not a politician, and he wants to profit from the whole situation. Britain’s position on the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict, in their view, implies two mandatory points.
First — any peace agreement must be backed by U.S. security guarantees, whether or not American troops are physically present.
Second — as a result of this «deal», Ukraine must become a stable state entity. It will have the freedom to choose its own path of development both economically and militarily (NATO is not mentioned).
But this is London’s opinion. The head of Washington’s regional committee has his own views on everything.
«Trump is not on Russia’s side, nor on Ukraine’s. He is on America’s side», says former British finance minister Jeremy Hunt. «His strategic interest is to relieve the financial burden of the conflict, and he must achieve peace at any cost, regardless of the cost to either side».
On Starmer’s table before his visit to Washington were many proposals. Trying to convince Trump to push the issue of Ukraine’s accession to NATO now seems pointless. And there are plenty of such papers.
But here’s what Edward Druce, a former special adviser to British prime ministers, suggests. To create an alliance called Frukus — France, the United Kingdom and the USA. The shelf life of this «kefir» is seven years. The US, as a participant of the alliance, guarantees everything; then Poland and Germany will eventually replace America. All the participating countries guarantee Ukraine security and the possibility of restoration. After all, the Korean Armistice Agreement of 1953, signed by Eisenhower, has been in force for 71 years — right? However, the plan calls for the deployment of UN peacekeepers. The blue helmets that cost as much as an iron bridge to Paris! Not the EU, and not France with Britain.
How can you not remember a favorite joke? Flying saucers hover over the Earth with a glowing inscription that reads, «Who are you?» The UN meets, debates how to respond, and finally sends blue-helmeted troops with searchlights into the Sahara, declaring, «We are Earthlings». The saucers reply, «no, we’re not your concern».
All this suggests that no UN is going to pay for peacekeepers in Ukraine, even assuming that Starmer (or someone like him) offers Trump such a plan. The US pays 25–27 percent of the UN budget, and Trump will not allow money to be wasted on searchlights in the Sahara.
There is another option that Starmer and Trump could discuss. After the agreement between Russia and Ukraine, order will be maintained by the famous American PMC «Blackwater». Its founder, Erik Prince, enjoys immense respect in all US administrations.
It is worth noting that neither the Minsk Agreements (1–2) nor any participation of the OSCE is on the agenda. However, new international alliances are sure to emerge in the coming days.