Europe News
Can Europe conjure a united front on Ukraine’s future?
Temporibus autem quibusdam et aut officiis debitis aut rerum necessitatibus saepe eveniet ut et voluptates.
Europe’s leaders are scrambling. Their hastily convened security summit in Paris on Monday is proof of that.
They are still reeling from not being invited by the US to talks with Russia over the future of Ukraine. US President Donald Trump said on Sunday he could be meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin “very soon”.
Can Europe, under pressure, put political differences and domestic economic concerns aside, and come up with a united front on security spending and on Ukraine’s future, including potentially sending troops there – to force themselves a spot at the negotiating table?
They are going to try.
The Trump administration is clearly not 100% sure what it wants to do about Ukraine. There were a number of mixed messages over the weekend.
This allows Europe a tiny window of opportunity to try to persuade the American president it’s an invaluable partner.
It hopes to do that via this Paris meeting, getting the ball rolling on two major issues demanded by Donald Trump: That Europe spend and do more for its own defence, and that Europe send troops to Ukraine after a ceasefire.
Europe’s leaders insist Kyiv be directly involved in ceasefire talks too. They’ve long maintained the view that “there can be no decisions about Ukraine, without Ukraine”.
But it’s about even more than that for Europe.
It is the cold realisation – much dreaded, but not entirely unexpected – that the Trump administration does not prioritise relations either with European partners, or their defence.
Europe has relied on a security umbrella provided by the US since World War Two.
Depending on the parameters of the Russia-US talks over Ukraine, and how emboldened Putin feels by them, there is also a European fear this could end up changing their continent’s security architecture.
Putin historically resents the spread of Nato eastwards. Russian neighbours – the tiny, former Soviet Baltic States and also Poland – now feel particularly exposed.
Not all European countries will be at Monday’s summit. Just those with military heft: the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and Denmark – which is expected to represent the Baltic and Nordic nations, plus the EU Council president and the secretary general of the defence alliance, Nato.
Other countries will reportedly have later, follow-up meetings.
Even at the small Paris gathering, it will be hard, if not impossible, to agree concrete defence spending increases. Poland plans to spend 4.47% of its GDP on defence in 2025. The UK is struggling towards, and hasn’t yet reached, 2.5% of its GDP.
But leaders can pledge to coordinate better, spend more inside Nato and shoulder most of Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction. The EU is expected to bolster its defence effort too.
A large part of the Paris meeting will also focus on the question of sending troops to Ukraine after a ceasefire.
The idea being discussed is not for peacekeeping troops but rather a “reassurance force”, stationed behind, rather than on, any eventual ceasefire line.
The aim of a European troop presence would be three-fold. To send a message to Ukrainians: that they are not alone. Another message to the US, to show that Europe is “doing its bit” for defence of its own continent, and the last message to Moscow, to warn that if it breaks the terms of an eventual ceasefire, it won’t be dealing with Kyiv alone.
But it’s a controversial concept and may not be popular with voters. In Italy for example, 50% of people asked don’t want to send any more weapons to Ukraine, never mind sending sons and daughters, sisters and brothers there.
There are so many as yet unanswered questions:
How many troops would each European country have to send, for how long, and under whose command? What would their mission statement be – for example if Russia broke the terms of an agreed ceasefire, would that mean European soldiers would be directly at war with Russia? Would the US have their back if so?
Europe would want a US security guarantee before deploying soldiers to Ukraine. It may not get one.
It’s far too much to be decided on Monday. And leaders, including UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, come to Paris with their own domestic concerns – can they afford extra defence spending, do they have the troops to send to Ukraine? Germany is nervous about making concrete commitments just before a heated general election.
But this summit is more broad brushstrokes than fine print. The conversation can at least get started publicly.
Will Donald Trump be paying attention?
Hard to know.
There’s talk of sending an envoy to Washington after the Paris meeting to make Europe’s case. Italy’s Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, is close to the Trump administration, for example.
Sir Keir Starmer has a planned visit to Washington in a few days. This could be his chance to act as a bridge between Europe and the US.
The Paris meeting also offers an opportunity for the UK and other European leaders to further mend relations after the bitterness of Brexit.
Mark Leonard, head of the European Council on Foreign Relations, notes that Starmer could “demonstrate that Britain is a responsible stakeholder for European security … Something that will be noticed and translate into goodwill when it comes to negotiations on other issues”.
Issues like trade relations and law enforcement co-operation which the UK hopes to improve with the EU going forward.
Host nation France is feeling confident. President Macron has long advocated that Europe be less reliant on outside countries for supply chains, tech capabilities and very much so when it comes to defence. He made headlines a year ago by first mooting the idea of troops on the ground in Ukraine.
France is “fiercely proud” that its intelligence and security services are not intertwined with the US, unlike the UK, says Georgina Wright, deputy director for international studies at the Institut Montaigne. That makes it less complicated to untangle, now that Trump is in the White House, demanding that Europe take care of itself.
The US has sent a document to European allies consisting of six points and questions, such as which countries would be willing to deploy troops to Ukraine as part of a peace settlement, and which governments would be prepared to increase sanctions on Russia, including more strictly enforcing existing ones.
But Julianne Smith, until recently the US ambassador to Nato, says this kind of complicated diplomatic work normally takes weeks of meetings and can’t be organised by filled-in forms.
She adds that whatever Europe’s leaders achieve in Paris, if they use that to demand a seat at the negotiating table over Ukraine, their hand is weak.
“If Trump blinks and says no, does Europe refuse to help altogether? They can’t cut off their nose to spite their face.”
Essentially, if the US plans to turn away from Ukraine and from Europe more broadly in terms of security, they will have to significantly up their defence game anyway.
If Donald Trump isn’t watching, Vladimir Putin certainly is.
Taken From BBC News
Paris ( Imran Y. CHOUDHRY):- The 221st session of the Executive Board of UNESCO started in UNESCO Headquarter in Paris. Composed of 58 Member States, the Executive Board meets twice a year and is the main policy-making body of the Organization.
Permanent Delegate of Pakistan to UNESCO, Ambassador Mumtaz Zahra Baloch addressed the plenary session of the 221st session of the Executive Board of UNESCO.
In the Executive Board meeting, Ambassador Madam Mumtaz Zahra Baloch speak some important points:
- Reaffirmed Pakistan’s commitment to a stronger and more effective UNESCO to meet today’s challenges.
- Emphasized the need for a realistic and sustainable budget to deliver on its strategic priorities in education, science, culture, and communication.
- Urged strategic rationalization in the structure and work of the organization; enhancing synergies, and reducing duplication and overlapping.
• Called on UNESCO to foster scientific collaboration to address common challenges; promote democratization of scientific progress and innovation; and insulate scientific advancement from artificial barriers and strategic competition.
- Appreciated the dedication and commitment of the UNESCO staff and underlined the need for transparency and accountability.
Office lights in some corners of Westminster were on much later than usual last night.
Why? Because ministers and officials, just like so many others, were watching the telly to see what President Trump would have to say, the Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds among them.
The president, brandishing a giant rectangular piece of card packed with the new tariff increases, unleashing waves of anxiety across factory floors, boardrooms and government ministries the world over.
Folk in government in the UK had picked up a sense of the mood music – a sense that the UK was “in the good camp rather than the bad camp” as one figure put it to me – but they had no idea in advance precisely what that would mean.
We now do know what it means.
I detect a sense of relief among ministers, but make no mistake they are not delighted – the tariffs imposed on the UK will have significant effects, and the tariffs on the UK’s trading partners will have a profound impact on jobs, industries and global trading flows in the weeks, months and years to come.
It will be “hugely disruptive,” as one government source put it.
There is an acute awareness in particular about the impact on the car industry.
- Live updates: Reaction to Trump’s tariffs announcements
- At a glance: What president’s new taxes mean for EU, China and others
- Global reaction: World leaders criticise Trump tariffs as ‘major blow’
- Explainer: What are tariffs, and why is Trump using them?
Negotiations with America over a trade deal continue.
I am told a team of four UK negotiators are in “pretty intensive” conversation with their American counterparts – talking remotely, but willing to head to Washington if signing a deal appears imminent.
Let’s see.
Those on the UK side characterise the discussions as “more like a corporate conversation than a trade negotiation”, putting that down to the personnel, outlook and biographies of plenty in the Trump administration.
The other point being seized upon at Westminster, in particular by the Conservatives, is the difference between how the UK is being treated compared to the European Union – with plenty pointing to it as a dividend of Brexit.
The Liberal Democrats, by contrast, think the UK should work with Commonwealth and European allies to stand up to President Trump and impose retaliatory tariffs “if necessary”.
The Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is meeting affected businesses on Thursday and the business secretary will address the Commons.
The next chapter of this economic revolution begins now, with how the world reacts, in rhetoric and retaliation.
This in itself will have a huge impact.
Whether, how and when some choose to respond will have economic and political consequences at home and abroad.
The global story of Donald Trump’s tariffs is only just beginning.
Taken From BBC News
The government will keep pushing for a deal to avoid a “trade war” after US President Donald Trump imposed new tariffs globally, the Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds has said.
Trump announced fresh levies on goods coming into his country including 10% on all UK imports and 20% on those from the European Union.
The UK has spent weeks working on a trade deal with the US to avoid the full impact of the level of tariffs introduced on countries such as Canada and China.
A Downing Street source said the UK’s lower tariff “vindicates” the government’s plans, because “the difference between 10% and 20% is thousands of jobs”.
Responding to the new tariffs, Reynolds said the government remained “fully focused” on negotiating a deal with the US that would strengthen their “balanced trading relationship”.
“We have a range of tools at our disposal and we will not hesitate to act,” he said.
The US plan sets a baseline tariff on all imports of at least 10%, with items from countries that the White House described as the “worst offenders” facing far higher rates for what Trump said was payback for unfair trade policies.
His move breaks with decades of US policy embracing free trade. Analysts said it was likely to lead to higher prices in the US and slower growth around the world.
The government’s official forecaster estimates a worst-case scenario trade war could reduce UK economic growth by 1% and wipe out the £9.9bn of economic headroom Chancellor Rachel Reeves gave herself at last week’s Spring Statement.
A Downing Street source told the BBC: “We don’t want any tariffs at all, but a lower levy than others vindicates our approach. It matters because the difference between 10% and 20% is thousands of jobs.
“We will keep negotiating, keep cool and keep calm,” the source said, adding: “Tomorrow we will continue with that work.”
The government will hold a series of talks with affected businesses on Thursday to provide support and discuss a response.
Sebastian Gorka, an adviser to Trump, suggested the UK’s approach had seen it receive a “special rate” on tariffs.
“After Brexit, you have reaffirmed your independence and I think that is been proven today by the special rate that has been afforded to the UK,” he told the BBC’s Newsnight, adding that the “exempted rate” could be “improved” in the future.
Diplomatic efforts are still ongoing. As part of the efforts to get a deal, Lord Mandelson, the UK ambassador, has had meetings in the White House with Vice-President JD Vance and Susie Wiles, the president’s chief of staff.
For the moment, the UK will not be “jumping into a trade war” with retaliatory tariffs, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said – a repeat of the response to Trump’s earlier tariffs on steel and aluminium.
Sir Keir told his cabinet this week he was “keeping all options on the table” to respond to the tariffs, which economists have warned could damage the UK economy and increase the cost of living.
Inside government officials hope that Wednesday’s announcement sets a “ceiling” on negotiations, not the final price, and can be talked down.
The government’s approach has been backed in some of the early responses from the UK business sector.
The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has said the government “has rightfully tried to negotiate a carve-out” and that businesses need a “measured and proportionate approach”.
But Conservative shadow trade secretary Andrew Griffith accused Labour of “failing to negotiate with President Trump’s team” in time.
“Sadly, it is British businesses and workers who will pay the price for Labour’s failure,” he said.
“The silver lining is that Brexit – which Labour ministers voted against no less than 48 times – means that we face far lower tariffs than the EU: a Brexit dividend that will have protected thousands of British jobs and businesses.”
In contrast, the Lib Dems urged the government to consider using “retaliatory tariffs where necessary” and form a “coalition of the willing against Trump’s tariffs” with other countries.
Government sources believe talks between the US and the UK have made good progress, but have been derailed by Trump’s public comments.
At different times, statements by Trump about his tariffs are said to have differed from what his negotiating team had previously understood his position to be.
The deal would be broader than just reducing tariffs, focusing on technology, but also covering elements of trade in goods and services as well as agriculture – a controversial area in previous unsuccessful US-UK trade talks.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has suggested the UK could change its taxes on big tech firms as part of a deal to overturn US tariffs.
The digital services tax, introduced in 2020, imposes a 2% levy on tech firms, including big US firms such as Amazon, bringing in about £800m in tax per year.
The UK motoring industry, also hit with an additional 25% tax on all car imports to the US announced this week, called the tariffs “deeply disappointing”.
Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, said the US announcement was “yet another challenge to a sector already facing multiple headwinds”.
Taken From BBC News
Trump Accepts Bribe of a Flying Palace from Qatar
Modi Reemerges: Humbled, Hurt, and Unreformed
India and Pakistan just stepped back from the brink of war. Here’s how it unfolded
-
Europe News2 months agoChaos and unproven theories surround Tates’ release from Romania
-
American News2 months agoTrump Expels Zelensky from the White House
-
American News2 months agoZelensky bruised but upbeat after diplomatic whirlwind
-
Politics2 months agoUS cuts send South Africa’s HIV treatment ‘off a cliff’
-
Pakistan News2 months agoCan Pakistan be a Hard State?
-
American News2 months agoTrump expands exemptions from Canada and Mexico tariffs
-
Art & Culture2 months agoInternational Agriculture Exhibition held in Paris
-
American News2 months agoU.S. Tariff Policies: A Historical Perspective