December 22, 2025

Last Friday, European Union leaders, after having failed to reach a consensus on using frozen Russian assets, decided to provide Ukraine with a 90-billion-euro loan over the next two years.

“We committed, we delivered,” said European Council President António Costa. “At the same time, we gave a mandate to the Commission to continue working on the Reparation Loan based on Russian immobilized assets. On top of that, we have agreed to roll over our sanctions against Russia.”

“The message we are sending to Russia today is crystal clear:

• “First, you have not achieved your objectives in Ukraine;
• “Second, Europe stands with Ukraine. Today, tomorrow, and as long as necessary;

• “Third, Russia must come to the negotiation table in a serious way and accept that it will not win this war.”[i]

Ukrainian Prime Minister Svyrydenko praised the deal as “a decisive step for economic resilience”.

The proposal to use Russia’s frozen assets had two outspoken advocates: Ursula von der Leyen, a former German Minister of Defense and now the President of the European Commission, and Chancellor Merz.

Following the agreement on the loan, the former said, “If we would not have had this tasking to put on the table two options or options for the financing for Ukraine, my guess is we would not have had the courage or the political momentum to permanently immobilize the Russian assets.”

And the latter said the loan “sends a clear signal from Europe to Putin.”

And “Either a lasting peace is reached in current negotiations, or we find ways for Europeans to re-engage in a dialogue with Russia, in transparency and association with Ukraine,” President Macron told reporters. “It will become useful again to speak to Vladimir Putin.”

Yesterday, the Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that President Putin has “expressed readiness to engage in dialogue with Mr. Macron.” And, this was welcomed by the French Presidency.

The only question is whether this is a purely French initiative or an opening gambit negotiated between France, Germany, and the UK (the European Three).

In early July, President Donald Trump issued his harshest criticism of President Putin, stating that Washington was restarting its arms shipments to Ukraine to respond to Russian attacks on civilians. In the following days, he threatened “very severe tariffs” and gave Russia a 50-day deadline for a ceasefire.

Later in the month, speaking alongside NATO’s Secretary General Rutte, at the White House, Mr. Trump said that Patriot air defense systems and other arms would “quickly” be transferred to Ukraine, adding that the US would sell those arms to European nations, who would ship them to Ukraine or use them to replace weapons they send to the country from their existing stocks.

At the end of July, Mr. Trump shortened Russia’s peace deal deadline from 50 to “10 or 12 days”.

These deadlines proved meaningless.

At the Anchorage summit in mid-August, President Trump was focused on peace in Ukraine. Because for Washington, the top global competitor is China, and the continuing war in Ukraine moves Moscow and Beijing closer to each other as both keep pressing for a multipolar world order.

Last Friday, during his traditional end-of-the-year press conference, President Putin said:

“I consider President Xi Jinping to be a reliable friend, a stable partner – my reliable friend and stable partner – and Russia’s ally. This is the most crucial foundation for the development of Russia-China relations; they are progressing steadily.”

At Anchorage, President Putin had broader objectives, such as increasing Western pressure on Kyiv for a peace deal that would allow him to end the war with a “victory”, reappear on the Western stage as a major interlocutor, take the first steps toward a reset in relations with Washington, and perhaps even restore trade and energy cooperation with the West.

Since then, Washington’s pressure on Ukraine to reach a peace deal has intensified. While Mr. Trump’s policy has been marked by twists and turns, President Putin has remained steady in demanding territorial concessions and a formal commitment that Ukraine will never join NATO. After four years of brave resistance by Ukrainians to Russian attacks on military and civilian targets, President Zelensky has now agreed to give up his quest for alliance membership. Thus, what matters now are the questions of territory and the security guarantees to be provided to Ukraine.

The reasons underlying Russia’s invasion of Ukraine remain on many minds. The answer, for some, despite differences in language, appears to be the admission that Kyiv was encouraged to take a too-pro-Western, too-pro-NATO stand, overreached, and despite Western arms supplies, was then left to its own devices in confronting Mr. Putin. Some add, “despite the lessons of the 2008 Russia-Georgia war.” Ukraine’s leaders should have been in a better position than those in the West to know that Moscow would not let them go easily. They could have continued to voice their aspirations to join the EU, waited for the post-Cold War European security architecture to evolve, and for Russia to digest the loss of an empire and waves of NATO expansion.

On March 5, 2014, in a Washington Post article, Henry Kissinger said, “Ukraine should not join NATO… Internationally, Ukraine should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.”[ii]

At this point, European leaders must regret their participation in President Biden’s plans to further weaken Russia in the first major conflict on the European continent since the Second World War. They still say they will continue to support Ukraine as long as necessary. The reality, however, is that they would all welcome a quick peace, preferably with strong US security guarantees for Ukraine. This is why they take care to accommodate Mr. Trump, despite his ignoring them. For them, the question of territory is a non-issue. They say this is for the Ukrainian leadership to decide. In brief, all the words of support for Ukraine and the warm embraces with President Zelensky have mostly been theatrical, like their public discourse on the war in Gaza.

President Trump, leaving open the possibility of war, is pursuing both regime change in Venezuela and the Nobel Peace Prize.

The European leaders can compete for the Academy Awards.

[i] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/12/19/remarks-by-president-antonio-costa-at-the-press-conference-following-the-european-council-meeting-of-18-19-december-2025/?utm_source=brevo&utm_campaign=AUTOMATED%20-%20Alert%20-%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_id=3318

[ii] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html