How do you regard the row between President Zelenskyy and Donald Trump at the White House and all that has happened since? Can the United States still be seen as a reliable partner for Europe and NATO?
Nobody wants to conclude that the US is not a reliable partner for NATO and Europe. But the start of talks between the US and Russian governments without Ukraine, the row between President Trump and President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office – these were already very worrying.
The pause on US military aid and intelligence-sharing to Ukraine and Vice-President JD Vance claiming Zelenskyy doesn’t want peace – these are extremely risky and can only be seen as yet another concession to Vladimir Putin. Altogether, these are bad signs. European governments should be on a state of high alert.
At least the summit in London at the start of March between European leaders, Canada and Zelenskyy was positive. All the countries there, Britain and France especially, said we want to step up and do the heavy lifting in terms of securing a sustainable peace agreement for Ukraine, which was something that Trump has insisted on.
The EU leaders’ emergency summit last week also showed strong support for Ukraine and rearming Europe. The summit agreed to provide €30.6bn to Kyiv this year with a statement that Ukraine must be part of any peace negotiations. All 27 leaders also agreed to measures to make it easier to release €800bn for extra defence spending, which is a huge increase. But this must be turned into action and quick decisions on joint procurement.
Red tape must be cut and funding must be made available for scalable production of everything from ammunition to drones. The mindset should be ‘war economy’. With that, we should get back to the table with the US, because, despite everything, there may be ways to solve the issue of the security guarantees.
US security guarantees to Ukraine are unlikely. What guarantees can Europe offer? And what might a US backstop look like?
NATO membership for Ukraine and direct security guarantees from the US to Ukraine are almost certainly off the table. Countries like France and the UK have said they would be willing to provide different types of security guarantees to Ukraine. But even though a ‘coalition of the willing’, as Keir Starmer called it, would not be a NATO operation, it would be a European operation under NATO structures. That’s important because it means NATO command and control, which also means the Americans would be in the loop.
We need to keep in mind that if we have forces stationed in Ukraine to deter Russia, then those assets, troops or other capabilities would not be available for the rest of NATO. So that is where you would want an agreement from the Americans to act as backstop.
The Europeans should also agree access to critical American enabling capabilities, such as heavy lifting and air surveillance. Europeans should certainly pledge to the Americans that they will develop those capabilities, but it will take time.
A security guarantee like this is possible but the US commitment to NATO needs to stay firm. I’ve not heard anybody in the American leadership raise doubts about NATO itself. But recent behaviour in Washington casts heavy doubt on the intentions of the Trump administration. Forcing Zelenskyy’s hand rather than Putin’s is problematic, not only for Ukraine.
What do you think of President Macron’s suggestion that France’s nuclear deterrent might be widened to include other European countries?
It’s very significant that France has put this on the table and that several European countries have shown willingness to discuss this. I hope that we can still rely on the American nuclear umbrella, but let’s be honest: the newest idea that’s been floated in Washington is that the US will only help defend fellow NATO member states that, by America’s judgment, spend enough on defence. In my opinion, that is not only against the treaty but yet another sign that we have to prepare for ‘Europeans only’ defence.
Mark Rutte, whose cabinet you served in, has dealt with Trump. In his role as NATO secretary-general, how will he try to win Trump round to pledge support?
It’s very helpful that Rutte, like President Macron, has worked with Trump before. As NATO’s leader, he and everyone negotiating with the Americans have to find the right way to address the issue of our common interests. A bad deal for Ukraine would naturally be a good deal for Russia and Putin, and a good deal for Putin is not in the interest of the United States because it makes Russia, and even some of its allies, like North Korea, stronger.
China is also looking at how this war in Ukraine will end, so it’s a very dangerous signal to send to autocratic countries that ‘might makes right’. I don’t think that’s the goal of the Trump administration.
At the London summit, President Macron said that European countries’ defence spending should be at least 3 per cent of GDP. The Netherlands spends 2 per cent. How can voters be persuaded to back such an increase?
After the row in the White House, people are really afraid. They have seen that Russia has not been deterred with regard to Ukraine, or to what it’s doing inside NATO and European Union countries. So it’s not hard to convince people that we need to do more.
The problem is some finance ministers think we can only spend more on finance by spending less on other things that matter to voters. But there are smarter ways to fund higher defence spending – in Europe, for instance, heavy lifting and air surveillance could be financed jointly.
The planned €800 billion of extra funding for defence spending announced by EU leaders last week will be done by relaxing budgetary rules and offering member states loans.
Keir Starmer says he wants Britain to be a bridge between Europe and the US. Friedrich Merz, the probable next chancellor of Germany, has appeared more confrontational. What challenges do these differing approaches present?
Geography means it’s natural for Britain to want to be that bridge. I think what Merz and Macron are stressing is that, whatever happens, Europe has to be able to stand on its own feet and start moving much faster. But we should also be stressing that the UK is historically a very important ally and partner.
I think, too, that if you listen to the United States, not only to Trump but also to previous administrations, including Obama’s, they have stressed that Europe should take more responsibility for its own security.
David Lammy, the foreign secretary, said that $350 billion of frozen Russian assets should be seized. Is he right, despite the potential problems of law and precedence?
There should be no taboos. I’ve always considered Russia’s frozen assets as something that we could use to rebuild Ukraine. I’ve seen the enormous destruction in the country – it’s in ruins. The estimates of how much it is going to cost to rebuild a normal, functioning country again are going up and up. Russia is clearly the aggressor and the cause of this destruction.
It is also clear that Russia has committed grievous war crimes, although this has yet to be assessed legally. So it seems natural to me that we should use these frozen Russian assets not only to rebuild after a just peace settlement has been agreed, but also, if necessary, to arm Ukraine.