The European Union and France Between Strategic Rhetoric and Political Constraints

While international media attention is increasingly focused on the likely duration of the military intervention against Iran after only a few days of strikes, a striking contrast emerges with Europe’s posture regarding the war in Ukraine. Four years after Russia’s invasion on February 24, 2022, the European Union still maintains that any peace negotiations can only take place if Kyiv is negotiating “from a position of strength.”

This political line, repeated by several European leaders, nevertheless raises a series of strategic, economic, and political paradoxes, which the evolving international context has made even more visible.

A European Line Clearly Stated: “Negotiating from a Position of Strength”

On February 24, 2026, marking the fourth anniversary of the Russian invasion, the foreign ministers of Germany, France, and Poland — Johann Wadephul, Jean-Noël Barrot, and Radosław Sikorski — published an op-ed in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung stating that no “lasting and just peace” can be achieved except through negotiations conducted “from a position of strength” by Ukraine. Their support for Kyiv was described as “unwavering.”

France, whose financial situation is increasingly strained, has fully aligned with this position — apparently whatever the cost. Some critics even draw comparisons with the financial burden of the COVID-19 crisis, which cost the country roughly €25 billion in extraordinary measures.

This position reflects a strategic doctrine now dominant in several European capitals: maintaining long-term military, economic, and diplomatic support in order to strengthen Ukraine’s resilience and compel Moscow to negotiate.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, however, offered a more sober reading of the conflict. On February 19, 2026, he stated in Der Spiegel that the war “will only end when one of the two sides is exhausted, militarily or economically.”

This formulation implicitly acknowledges the war-of-attrition nature of the conflict.

A tension therefore already exists between political rhetoric and strategic analysis.

A European Document with Ambitious Demands

European objectives appear even more ambitious in a working document attributed to the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas. According to Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, the document reportedly outlines conditions described as “maximalist.”

Among the conditions mentioned are:

the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from all occupied Ukrainian territories;

the end of Russian military presence in several post-Soviet regions: Belarus Transnistria Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) Armenia

Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia)

the payment of financial compensation to Ukraine as well as to European companies and states;

the organization of elections in Russia under international supervision;

the release of political prisoners and the repeal of laws restricting foreign involvement;

judicial cooperation concerning the deaths of Alexei Navalny and Boris Nemtsov.

During a press conference on February 23, 2026, Kaja Kallas publicly called on Moscow to respect international borders, end sabotage operations, and pay war reparations.

These demands illustrate Europe’s intention to establish a very ambitious political framework for a future negotiation. Yet they also appear far removed from the current military balance of power.

An Additional Initiative: Restricting Access to the Schengen Area

In this context, more targeted proposals are also being considered in Brussels.

Estonia, supported by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, has proposed banning Russian soldiers who participated in the invasion from entering the European Union. An Estonian document refers to a “direct risk to the Schengen area.”

According to reports by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the proposal is being examined by EU institutions but raises several technical difficulties, including:

identifying the individuals concerned;

collecting and verifying relevant data;

integrating the information into the Schengen Information System (SIS).

Even if largely symbolic, the proposal illustrates the determination of some Eastern European states to further harden the EU’s policy toward Russia. These measures, however, appear unlikely to influence the Kremlin’s strategic calculations.

The European Debate Over the Cost of War

The central question remains the cost and duration of this commitment.

In an editorial published on February 24, 2026, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung urged Europeans to demonstrate a determination “as courageous as that of the Ukrainians.” The article explicitly refers to the need for financial sacrifices among countries supporting Kyiv and calls for increased military capabilities.

According to Deutschlandfunk, the cost of rebuilding Ukraine is now estimated at approximately €500 billion.

This debate takes place within an economic context already fragile for several EU member states. The long-term financing of both the war effort and reconstruction is therefore becoming a major strategic issue for the European Union.

Ukrainian Public Opinion Now Divided

Ukrainian society itself no longer appears completely unified regarding the war’s objectives.

A survey conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) between January 23 and January 29, 2026, found that:

52% of respondents consider the idea of conceding the Donbas in exchange for Western security guarantees to be completely unacceptable;

40% say they would accept such an arrangement in principle: 31% consider it “difficult but acceptable” 9% say it would be “easy.”

31% consider it “difficult but acceptable”

9% say it would be “easy.”

These figures reflect the growing fatigue caused by the prolonged conflict.

They also remind observers that the Donbas region had already been the site of a simmering war since 2014, which had caused more than 15,000 deaths before the full-scale invasion in 2022.

 The Rarely Asked Question: What Do European Citizens Think?

While analyses frequently examine Ukrainian public opinion, the views of European citizens are discussed far less often.

Yet attitudes vary significantly depending on geographical proximity and political context. Central and Eastern European states generally adopt a harder line toward Moscow, while public opinion in Western Europe tends to be more nuanced.

France, for example, expresses strong political support for Kyiv. But this position faces several constraints:

Europe’s strategic dependence on U.S. military support;

growing budgetary pressures across several member states;

internal political divisions.

Without the logistical and military support of Washington, Ukraine would face serious challenges in maintaining its defensive capabilities.

The Energy Factor and the Emerging Iranian Crisis

The opening of a new crisis surrounding Iran could further complicate Europe’s strategic situation.

In this context, Moscow has hinted that it might reconsider its remaining gas deliveries to the European Union. Such a decision would have direct consequences for energy markets.

oil prices have reportedly increased by roughly 30% within a week;

some projections suggest liquefied natural gas (LNG) prices could rise by around 50%.

Such developments could place significant pressure on European economies already weakened by several years of energy crisis.

A Rarely Discussed Legal Question: Co-Belligerency

Another debate remains largely absent from public discourse.

According to some legal scholars, direct financial support for a belligerent in an armed conflict may, under certain interpretations of international law, bring supporting states closer to the status of co-belligerents.

While this classification remains debated, it nonetheless raises an important strategic question:

How far can the European Union go in supporting Ukraine without becoming directly involved in the conflict itself?

An Unresolved Strategic Equation

Four main observations emerge from the current situation:

the European doctrine of “negotiating from a position of strength” is now clearly established politically;

several European proposals set very ambitious conditions for a future peace settlement;

Ukrainian public opinion shows clear signs of fatigue after four years of war;

economic and energy constraints within Europe are intensifying.

The war in Ukraine has therefore become a major test of the European Union’s strategic credibility.

The European Union now faces a complex equation: support Ukraine over the long term while preserving its own economic stability, political cohesion, and energy security.

Political declarations demonstrate strong determination. Yet the military, financial, and energy resources required to sustain this strategy over time remain more than uncertain.

The central question therefore remains open:

Does Europe truly possess the political, economic, and strategic resources necessary to transform its rhetoric into durab.le action? The current picture is rather troubled

The coming months may provide part of the answer.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)