Connect with us

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.

Published

on

Photo: Shutterstock

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.

Getty Images A playground is seen next to a destroyed apartment building on April 9, 2022 in Borodianka, Ukraine.
Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukrainian towns and cities have suffered heavy bombardment

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.

Getty Images US Vice President JD Vance (3rd R), US Secretary of State Marco Rubio (4th R) and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (3rd L) meet on the sidelines of the 61st Munich Security Conference (MSC) in Munich, southern Germany on February 14, 2025
The summit in Paris follows the Munich Security Conference, where US declarations caused discord among European leaders

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

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9qjq4z0xw8o

Europe News

UK Labels Israel “Genocidal” and Bans Its Products

Published

on

By

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : The world stands at a critical juncture in its relationship with Israel. For decades, the international community has watched as Palestinians have been systematically displaced, their homes destroyed, and their rights violated under the guise of security concerns. The recent announcement by the United Kingdom government to impose comprehensive sanctions on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank represents a watershed moment—one that challenges the long-standing impunity with which Israel has operated. These measures are not merely diplomatic gestures but essential tools for justice, peace, and the preservation of human dignity.

Ironically it was the UK which spearheaded the foundation of Israel in 1948, and was instrumental in ethnically cleansing 750,000 Palestinians from their homes in Majdal Ashkelan to establish the state of Israel. These Palestinians were forcibly removed, placed in prison camps, and eventually dumped into the Gaza Strip, where they have been permanently warehoused under siege conditions.

However, as repentance of its past crimes, the encouraging British government’s decision to ban imports from illegal Israeli settlements, impose strict arms export controls, and sanction individuals involved in settler violence represents a courageous stand for international law, is a step in the right direction.. These settlements are unequivocally illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring parts of its own civilian population into territory it occupies. For too long, the international community has paid lip service to this principle while allowing Israel to continue its expansion unabated.

Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband’s characterization of settler activities as “ethnic cleansing” is not hyperbole but an accurate description of reality. When Israeli settlers, often with state protection, systematically drive Palestinian communities from their land through violence, intimidation, and the destruction of homes and olive groves, this is ethnic cleansing by any reasonable definition. The UK’s sanctions send a clear message: such practices have consequences, and the era of impunity is ending.

Israel’s reaction to the UK sanctions has been telling. President Herzog and Prime Minister Netanyahu have condemned the measures, claiming that sanctions are not the solution and that dialogue is the only path forward. Yet this appeal to dialogue is fundamentally disingenuous when Israel itself has consistently rejected dialogue in favor of military action. The same government that has flattened Gaza, destroyed southern Lebanon, occupied the Golan Heights, and continues to expand settlements in the West Bank cannot credibly lecture others about the virtues of peaceful negotiation.

The Israeli government’s countermeasures—closing the British consulate in Jerusalem, expelling UK representatives from coordination centers, and denying entry to British officials—reveal a government more interested in retaliation than reconciliation. This is the behavior of a state that believes it can act with complete impunity, that international law applies to others but not to itself. The irony of Israel’s position becomes even more apparent when considering its enthusiastic support for US sanctions against Iran. If sanctions are illegitimate when applied to Israel, why are they legitimate when applied to others?

What makes the current moment particularly significant is the growing global consensus around the need to hold Israel accountable. Canada and France have already implemented matching bans on settlement trade, and other nations are expected to follow. This is not a fringe movement but a mainstream diplomatic position grounded in international law and basic human rights principles.

The United States, Israel’s most steadfast ally, is increasingly isolated in its unconditional support. The proposed congressional resolution declaring that the United States will not aid Israel or enter into wars on its behalf represents a significant shift in American public sentiment. Even within the US, there is growing recognition that uncritical support for Israel has damaged American interests, destabilized the Middle East, and put the United States on the wrong side of history.

The call for boycott has extended beyond governments to include religious authorities and civil society organizations. Christian leaders, including Archbishop J. Black, have called for boycott of Israeli products, drawing parallels to the successful international campaign against apartheid South Africa. Their position is rooted not in anti-Semitism but in a profound commitment to justice—the recognition that any system built on racial or religious supremacy must be dismantled.

The boycott movement has practical implications. Consumers are being urged to check labels and avoid products from Israeli settlements, which are often sold under supermarket own brands or other disguises. Items ranging from fruits and vegetables to beauty products, diamonds, and plastic goods should be scrutinized for Israeli origins. The economic impact of such boycotts, if sustained, could be substantial—UK trade with Israel amounts to approximately $1.6 billion annually.

The UK’s leadership in this matter provides an opportunity for Muslim countries to take decisive action. While individual boycotts have existed in some Muslim nations, coordinated government-level sanctions would send an even stronger message. Islamic countries should follow the British example by imposing comprehensive bans on Israeli products, regardless of how they are branded or marketed. They should also consider severing diplomatic, economic, and cultural ties with Israel until it complies with international law.

This is not about targeting Jewish people—a charge that Israeli leaders cynically weaponize to deflect legitimate criticism. It is about opposing a state that has institutionalized discrimination, collective punishment, and territorial expansion. The vast majority of pro-Palestinian advocates, whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or secular, are motivated by a commitment to human rights, not by prejudice.

No discussion of Israel’s accountability would be complete without addressing the United States’ role as its primary enabler. For decades, the US has provided Israel with billions of dollars in annual aid, diplomatic cover at the United Nations, and military support that has been used to commit atrocities against Palestinians. This relationship has not only facilitated Israeli aggression but has also undermined US credibility in the Middle East and the global South.

The American people, who are hardworking, peace-loving, and committed to justice, must pressure their representatives to end this unconditional support. Individual Americans can participate in boycotts, campaign for congressional action, and raise their voices in solidarity with Palestinians. The Israeli government’s increasingly extreme rhetoric, including calls for a “greater Israel” from the Nile to the Euphrates, should alarm all Americans who value stability and international law.

The South African anti-apartheid movement demonstrated that sustained international pressure can bring about change. Sanctions, boycotts, and diplomatic isolation were instrumental in forcing the apartheid regime to negotiate an end to its discriminatory system. The same strategy can and must be applied to Israel.

Making Israel a pariah state serves multiple purposes. First, it strips away the illusion that Israel’s actions are legitimate, forcing the Israeli public to confront the reality of their government’s policies. Second, it creates tangible consequences for continued occupation and settlement expansion. Third, it signals to the world that the era of unconditional tolerance for Israeli atrocities is over.

The UK’s sanctions against Israeli settlements are not an act of hostility but an expression of hope—hope that international law can be restored, hope that justice can prevail over might, hope that the Palestinian people will finally receive the recognition and rights they have been denied for three generations.

Justice for Palestinians is not about choosing sides in a conflict; it is about upholding fundamental principles of human dignity, equality, and the rule of law. Israel must now confront the fact that its political establishment has become a pariah in the community of nations. The question is not whether Israel will change—it is whether the world will have the courage to demand that change. History will judge us all by our response to this defining moment. The time for action is now, and the world must recognize Palestine as a state and ensure its borders are protected. Only through collective action can we ensure that justice, truth, and humanity prevail.

Continue Reading

Europe News

Ahmadiyya Muslim Community distance organisation from “Ahmadi Religion of Light and Peace” After Media Confusion

Published

on

By

After the UK based religious group ‘The Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light” was raided by police, with nine arrests for modern slavery and child marriage, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has issued a formal statement distancing itself from the organisation.

Due to the similarity in name, what followed was a wave of public confusion triggered by recent media reports.

A clarification statement issued by the UK president of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Mr Rafiq Hayat, explains that the organisations are entirely unrelated and asked media outlets to ensure this distinction is made clear in all future reporting — including previously published online material.

The Community has proposed a standard clarification line for journalists: “The Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light is a separate organisation and is not associated with the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community that has a historical presence in the UK and whose members are known as Ahmadis.”

Whilst the BBC has already issued a clarification, this statement encourages other media outlets to also do so, suggesting that both friends and stakeholders of the community as well as members of the community have been confused by the media coverage.

The Ahmadiyya Community which has been established in the UK since 1913 and built London’s first mosque in 1926 which is still functioning, have long established themselves as a Muslim sect which abides by the motto “Love for All, Hatred for None.”

Continue Reading

Europe News

World Famous French International Agricultural Show Started in Paris

Published

on

By

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY):- The World Famous International Agricultural Show has showcased various agricultural sectors. Paris will play host to three complementary exhibitions: the Paris International Agricultural Show (SIA), the Agricultural Technologies and Solutions Exhibition (SIA’PRO), and the Concours Général Agricole.

The 2026 Paris International Agricultural Show opened its doors with a call to support the agricultural sector, with a particular focus on the bovine sector.
Among the highlights, the final of the Ovinpiades des Jeunes Bergers — the Young Shepherds’ Competition — and the opening of the Concours Général Agricole. Côte d’Ivoire is this year’s guest of honour, showcasing its agricultural innovations. Visitors around the world can explore new spaces such as AGRI’CULTURE, featuring screenings, live performances and a themed bookshop. A varied programme of activities for children and a fishmongers’ competition further enrich the event.

French President Emmanuel Macron attended the opening day and inauguration of the 62nd International Agricultural Fair (Salon de l’Agriculture).

The launch of the Year of Pastoralism at the Grand Ring and the most prestigious Concours Général Agricole wine competition, featuring 100% blind tastings. Côte d’Ivoire, the guest country, celebrates its key sectors: cocoa, coffee, forestry and innovation, through a vibrant and immersive pavilion. On the new additions front, the AGRI’LIBRAIRIE in the AGRI’CULTURE pavilion offers over 800 titles and author meet-and-greet sessions. Today’s programme includes the Texel breed competition, herbal infusion workshops, and Gargantua demonstrations and tastings. Behind the scenes, preparations are underway for SIA’PRO, with professional networking sessions.

The horses and donkeys featuring shows, demonstrations, a pop-up pony club and a special performance by the Cadre Noir. Today’s highlights include a live cooking show with Redouane Bougheraba and Top Chef winner Quentin Mauro, as well as the official launch of Terres de Jim. New this year: guided tours for visually impaired visitors and the opening of SIA’PRO, the professional trade show dedicated to agricultural technologies and solutions. The 3rd GAIA hackathon also kicks off, focusing on AI and agroecology. Finally, the Maison des Vétos invites families to discover careers in animal health.

Women in agriculture as part of the International Year of Women Farmers, featuring testimonials and discussions on their role and ongoing inequalities. A major highlight is the exceptional Cadre Noir de Saumur gala on the Grand Ring, followed by a signing session. Entertainment includes a first-ever classical concert at the CGA restaurant, the official crowning of Miss and Mister Agri, and tastings at the Pacific Village. Pastoralism also takes center stage with the immersive “Transhumance 360°” exhibition. Finally, the Vendée brioche makes its experimental debut at the Concours Général Agricole.

At this exhibition Pakistani Ambassador Madam Mumtaz Zahra Baloch also visited and represented Pakistan at the Ministerial Session on the sidelines of the exposition. During the visit, Ambassador Baloch held constructive exchanges with farmers, innovators, and industry leaders to explore new avenues for cooperation between Pakistan and France in modern agriculture and sustainable agri-technology.

This year, the Paris International Agricultural Show is marked by crises due to climate disasters, trade tensions and unstable incomes, as well as animal disease outbreaks, which have led to there being no cows or poultry at this edition.

Photos @ Imran Y. CHOUDHRY

Continue Reading

Trending