Europes Dedication to Continued Comprehensive Support for Ukraine The Parties Difficult Egress from the Quagmire

Addressing the Ukraine crisis and providing comprehensive support to the country against Russia remains at the forefront of the European Unions fundamental priorities. In line with this approach the European Union is also diligently pursuing a strategy to achieve defence and security independence and self-reliance. Recent actions by European leaders clearly testify to their firm determination and resolve in this Euro-Atlantic confrontation with Moscow.

Addressing the Ukraine crisis and providing comprehensive support to the country against Russia remains at the forefront of the European Union's fundamental priorities. In line with this approach, the European Union is also diligently pursuing a strategy to achieve defence and security independence and self-reliance. Recent actions by European leaders clearly testify to their firm determination and resolve in this Euro-Atlantic confrontation with Moscow.

However, in an apparent contradiction, while various and numerous diplomatic efforts continue to end this costly and attritional conflict – which has entailed severe human and material consequences – we are witnessing an escalating trend in air, missile, and drone attacks by the warring parties.

In recent days, European leaders have made new decisions to impose further sanctions on Russia and also to lift range restrictions for Ukraine's missile attacks deep into Russian territory. Within this framework, Friedrich Merz, the German Chancellor, announced on May 26, 2025, that Berlin, along with Washington, London, and Paris, had removed all restrictions on arms deliveries to Ukraine.

This action prompted a sharp reaction from Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin Spokesperson. He warned: "Such decisions by European countries to lift range restrictions on weapons supplied to Ukraine are in complete contradiction with Moscow's efforts to achieve a political solution." Peskov added: "These potential actions, if they materialize, would be in stark opposition to our aspirations for a political agreement."

Concurrently, the Dutch Ministry of Defence announced the completion of the delivery of the last batch of the total 24 F-16 fighter jets pledged to Ukraine. According to the Ukrainian newspaper "Pravda," the final group of these Dutch fighter jets departed Volkel Air Base in the southern Netherlands on Monday (presumably June 2, 2025) for Belgium, to be handed over to Ukraine after final preparations.

Ruben Brekelmans, the Dutch Minister of Defence, who was present at the send-off ceremony for these jets, emphasized their vital importance for Ukraine, stating: "Given Russia's daily air attacks, F-16 fighter jets play a key role for Ukraine. These jets enable Ukraine to repel Russian aggression."

The Dutch Ministry of Defence also clarified that the transfer of these fighter jets does not signify the end of the Netherlands' participation in the "fighter jet coalition" – which it co-leads with Denmark and the United States. The country will continue to actively participate in maintaining the combat readiness of these jets and will continue organizing the training of Ukrainian pilots at the European F-16 Training Center (EFTC) in Romania.

Last week, the leaders of the European Quadrilateral group (Britain, France, Germany, Poland) traveled to Kyiv and from there issued an ultimatum to Russia to halt the war on land, sea, and air starting Monday, May 12; otherwise, they would approve new and much more severe sanctions packages. This can be said to be the first foreign policy action of the new Chancellor, Friedrich Merz. He described this move as the most important diplomatic initiative in recent months, perhaps in recent years, adding that Germany wants to assume responsibility for European leadership. Putin, however, did not even respond to the European leaders. The next day, he unexpectedly proposed the resumption of direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul on May 15. In this context, the Kremlin sent a delegation to Istanbul led by the Head of the Writers' Union, Medinsky, a controversial historian who played an important role in promoting the theory of the unity of the Ukrainian and Russian peoples. It must be said that Medinsky's appointment as the head of the Russian delegation for the talks implies an attempt to resume and continue the March 2022 negotiations from the early weeks of the war. Of course, from the European perspective, the document Russia presented as the Istanbul agreement is, at the very least, debatable; Ukrainians claim they did not sign any document in 2022, and the provisions Putin cites contained conditions for Ukraine's surrender in March 2022, when Russian forces were at the gates of the capital, which Kyiv had rejected. Indeed, in the Istanbul talks, after one hour and forty minutes of discussion, the only agreement reached was a mutual exchange of 1,000 prisoners.

The reality is that after the 22-point peace plan proposed by Russia was opposed and rejected by Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy, the Kremlin showed no further inclination to welcome him. In such circumstances, the only way out of this impasse seemed to be a direct telephone conversation between Trump and Putin; a call that finally took place on Monday, May 9, 2025, and lasted for two hours.

However, according to Vladimir Putin, this conversation brought no change to Russia's positions. He clarified that a ceasefire, even for 30 days, would only be possible if Moscow's specific conditions were accepted. Thus, Trump's diplomacy not only failed to achieve any tangible results but also placed the United States in a vulnerable position, especially vis-à-vis its traditional allies. The consequence of this situation has been a noticeable shift in Trump's stance in recent days, to the extent that we are witnessing threats of Russia's collapse and even unprecedented verbal attacks from him against the Russian President.

This change in Trump's approach might somewhat reduce the existing rift between the two sides of the Atlantic regarding the "conflict of the century" with Russia, while also potentially bolstering Zelenskyy's morale to continue resistance.

In a general summary, it must be acknowledged that few predicted the Ukraine war would turn into such an attritional and costly confrontation between the NATO axis and Russia – a battle with hundreds of billions of dollars in damages and hundreds of thousands of human casualties, for which finding an exit path now seems far more difficult and arduous than continuing the war itself. Perhaps the insistence of the warring parties on maximalist demands has made achieving any agreed-upon solution so difficult.

Meanwhile, on one hand, Europe pursues important objectives by continuing its support for Ukraine: first, to prevent what it calls "Russia's successful exit from the war," and second, in its view, to prevent the repetition of such aggressions against other countries on the continent. On the other hand, the Kremlin has also seriously placed on its agenda its strategic goal of completely eliminating the threat of NATO's eastward expansion and ensuring sustainable security for Russia.

Ultimately, it seems the best strategy for countries not directly involved in this campaign is to adopt an approach of "active neutrality" – a policy that, while astutely utilizing multilateral opportunities, safeguards them from incurring the heavy costs of ill-considered partisanship.

Ali Beman Eghbali Zarch, Head of Eurasia Studies Group

 (The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the IPIS)