Europe’s empty promises: How Macron's effort to shield Ukraine backfired EU’s geopolitical power dwindles

Readers are likely familiar with the statement made by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during his meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, where he mentioned that “negotiations between the Russian and US delegations in Saudi Arabia are taking place about Ukraine without Ukraine’s participation.” Zelenskyy expressed surprise over his exclusion from the discussions, calling it a “surprise.” At the same time, these bilateral negotiations between Washington and Moscow proceeded without the involvement of major European leaders.

Following the talks, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that Ukraine and Europe “will be included in the negotiation process,” but, as analysts quickly pointed out, this remark demonstrated that Kyiv and Brussels do not play a central role in the ongoing discussions. Even though Rubio emphasized “concessions from all sides,” the key point of his statement was the acknowledgement that the talks were focused on “exploring opportunities for closer relations and economic cooperation” between the US and Russia.

It is especially telling that in recent days, the European Union has once again shown its geopolitical impotence. The meeting in Paris, organized by French President Emmanuel Macron “for the benefit of protecting Ukraine’s interests,” which saw participation from several prominent EU politicians, ultimately ended in failure. Many had initially viewed the highly publicized “urgent meeting” in Paris as a European move “against US dominance,” and were expecting significant breakthroughs that would showcase the “strength and power” of the European Union. However, the result was a complete disappointment.

Despite this, Macron loudly proclaimed the upcoming convening of a new meeting of European leaders at the Élysée Palace. However, this time it would be with an expanded group, though once again excluding Hungary and Slovakia. It’s possible that Macron and his team were buoyed by the gracious agreement from US President Donald Trump, who expressed openness to the potential deployment of EU peacekeepers to Ukraine “to monitor the ceasefire, if one is implemented.” However, Trump made it clear that the presence of US peacekeeping forces in Ukraine was not on the agenda. At the same time, European leaders are underscoring the importance of US involvement in discussions about security guarantees for Ukraine through the European Union, as they themselves have little hope in their own capacity to manage the situation effectively.

Regardless of the outcomes of the second Paris meeting, it has become unmistakably clear that Europe’s previous pledges of unwavering and unconditional support for Kyiv "until victory" were nothing more than empty slogans. In particular, the media widely reported Trump’s remarks on the necessity of holding elections in Ukraine to “legitimize the position of the country’s president.” By doing so, the Trump administration essentially backed one of Moscow’s central conditions for peace talks with Kyiv.

The points outlined above clearly demonstrate that, at this critical juncture in history, no nation that genuinely places its trust in verbal assurances from third-party states offering “mandatory” assistance in times of crisis can be guaranteed immunity from the very real challenges of safeguarding its statehood. A pertinent example is Azerbaijan, which is steadfastly pursuing its path to strengthen its national independence and genuine sovereignty. Regardless of the reluctance of some of our nation's adversaries to accept this fact, as the saying goes, “you can’t knock the words out of a song.” Azerbaijan’s experience stands as a solid confirmation of the historical reality that only a consistent approach to conducting an independent foreign policy can form the foundation for achieving the significant global objectives set by the state.

The groundwork for this approach was laid by the National Leader Heydar Aliyev. In 1994, he asserted that “from now on and forever, Azerbaijan will exist as an independent state,” and that the goal of the Azerbaijani people “is to strengthen its independence and prevent those who try to take this independence away.” As a result, Azerbaijan “develops its internal and external policies based on national interests.” In 1996, the National Leader further emphasized that to secure national independence, “we must endure all the deprivations and hardships.” But once these are overcome, “we will witness the excellent outcomes of national freedom and state independence.” “This is our strategic path, and we will never stray from this path,” remarked Heydar Aliyev.

Ten years later, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev characterized the country’s foreign policy, both in bilateral terms and within international organizations, as highly successful and carefully considered, stating: "We have a strategic course, and we are faithful to it." As a result, Azerbaijan "is an active participant in the ongoing global processes."

In 2014, the president emphasized the "principled and independent" nature of Azerbaijan's foreign policy, pointing to the "presence of strong political will" as its fundamental cause, explaining that "without this, no country can pursue an independent policy." In 2019, President Ilham Aliyev elaborated further, stating that "our foreign policy is built on national interests, which we always defend at the proper level and will continue to defend." By 2024, President Aliyev confidently asserted that "both in the West and in the East, Azerbaijan is seen as an entirely independent player, conducting its own foreign policy."

In this way, the independence of a country’s foreign policy is key to enhancing its geopolitical standing. When a nation resists external pressure and blackmail, prioritizing the defence of its national interests, it sets a clear course for progress. Only by maintaining this direction, overcoming all challenges, can a country move forward—free from the deceptive and hollow promises of forces that, while professing support, are ultimately focused on advancing their own geopolitical agendas.