President Volodymyr Zelensky met the UK prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Friedrich Merz at 10 Downing Street on Monday, 8 December, for talks focused on the US-led proposal to end Russia’s war in Ukraine. Starmer’s spokesman called the current track “the furthest we’ve got in four years,” while Zelensky underlined the need for a peace that comes with credible security guarantees. The meeting followed three days of US–Ukraine discussions in Washington that ended without a breakthrough.
European leaders have publicly backed the drive for a ceasefire but insist any settlement must be durable and respect Ukraine’s sovereignty. Germany’s chancellor said he was “sceptical” about aspects of the US papers circulating in negotiations, signalling European caution over proposals reported to include territorial concessions. Zelensky has said there is no agreement on eastern Ukraine and that talks remain “constructive but not easy.”
Washington’s position has been set against the backdrop of its new National Security Strategy, released on 5 December. The document argues for an expeditious end to hostilities in Ukraine, calls for “strategic stability” with Russia, and criticises European governments for “unrealistic expectations.” The tone has unsettled EU capitals and was welcomed by the Kremlin, highlighting a widening transatlantic gap over both the pace and terms of a deal.
US policy changes earlier in the year continue to shape Kyiv’s leverage. In March, the administration paused military aid and curtailed major elements of intelligence-sharing that Ukraine had relied on for precision strikes, moves officials framed as leverage for negotiations. European partners have since channelled funding to buy US weapons for transfer to Ukraine-using mechanisms such as NATO’s Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List-partly offsetting the American pause.
Europe’s military capacity constraints remain central to Monday’s talks. NATO allies agreed at the June summit in The Hague to raise defence-related spending to 5% of GDP by 2035-of which at least 3.5% covers core defence and up to 1.5% funds resilience and industrial capacity-with a review in 2029. The UK separately committed to lift defence spending to 2.5% of GDP from April 2027 and said combined defence and security outlays would reach 2.6% that year. These targets strengthen Ukraine’s long‑term deterrence but will take time to deliver.
Financing instruments were also on the table. The European Commission has proposed a reparations‑linked loan backed by immobilised Russian sovereign assets to raise around €90bn for Ukraine in 2026–27; Belgium, home to Euroclear, remains cautious over legal risk. London, for its part, has said it will use the value of frozen Russian state assets to support Ukraine, while avoiding assets owned by sanctioned individuals.
France illustrates the budget pressures facing capitals. Paris’s 2025 finance bill initially earmarked roughly €120m for aid lines to Ukraine, later supplemented by a €195m package funded from interest on frozen Russian assets. Ambitions for large, multi‑year arms programmes have been announced, but funding and delivery timelines remain uncertain.
Security concerns extend beyond the battlefield. A spate of drone incursions forced temporary airport closures in Denmark, Germany and Belgium this autumn, and Polish authorities have blamed recent railway sabotage on networks linked to Russian intelligence. European cyber incident reporting also points to elevated state‑backed activity. These incidents have reinforced arguments in EU and NATO circles for tougher air defence, counter‑UAS and infrastructure protection.
For policymakers, the hinge issue is the trade‑off between speed and resilience. A rapid ceasefire built on territorial concessions risks a freeze that rewards aggression; a slower track that embeds verifiable guarantees, multi‑year funding and strengthened air defences may better deter renewed attack but requires sustained transatlantic coordination. London’s session sought to align European parameters-security guarantees, reconstruction finance and defence industrial output-before further talks with Washington.
Next steps will move quickly. Zelensky is due in Brussels for follow‑on discussions with NATO and EU leaders, while US envoys continue contacts with both Kyiv and Moscow. Whether Europe and the United States can reconcile different risk appetites-on timelines, territorial issues and guarantees-will determine if any paper emerging in the coming weeks can translate into a stable settlement rather than a temporary pause.