Europe Just Watched America Negotiate Away Its Security

The Munich Security Conference is supposed to be where Europe and America coordinate on shared threats. This year, it became the venue where European leaders discovered they'd been locked out of the most consequential negotiations over European security in generations.

While French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz made speeches about European unity in Munich on Friday, American envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were finalizing plans for trilateral talks in Geneva next Tuesday—with Russia and Ukraine, but notably without any European representation at the table.

"You can negotiate without the Europeans, if you prefer," Macron said, his frustration barely concealed. "But it will not bring a peace at the table."

He's right. But that hasn't stopped Washington from trying.

The Sequence That Matters

According to the Institute for the Study of War's February 13 assessment, the United States has accepted Russia's demanded sequencing: Ukraine cedes territory first, receives formal security guarantees later—if at all. This isn't just bad negotiating. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes ceasefires hold.

Ukraine has indicated it would consider withdrawing from parts of Donetsk Oblast—a significant concession that would hand Russia defensive positions it has spent years failing to capture militarily. But that withdrawal only makes sense if Ukraine receives ironclad guarantees that Russia won't simply regroup and attack again. Security guarantees aren't a reward for good behavior. They're the precondition for any territorial compromise to be anything other than delayed surrender.

The problem is that Russia has consistently rejected any meaningful Western security guarantees for Ukraine—especially the deployment of Western troops or monitoring forces. Moscow wants the territory without accepting any mechanism that would prevent it from taking more later. And according to multiple reports from Politico and The New York Times, Washington has accepted this framework.

Europe's Fortress Belt Problem

What exactly is Ukraine being asked to give up? The so-called Fortress Belt in Donetsk Oblast is a line of fortifications Ukraine has defended since 2014. Russian forces have been trying to breach it for over a decade. At current rates of advance, ISW estimates it would take Russia another two to three years to seize these positions militarily.

A Ukrainian withdrawal would hand Russia defensive terrain that controls approaches to central and southwestern Ukraine—positions Moscow could use to launch the next phase of its war whenever it chooses. Without credible guarantees, Ukraine would be trading a fortified present for an indefensible future.

This is where Europe's exclusion from negotiations becomes a material problem, not just a diplomatic slight. European security depends on Ukraine holding a defensible line. If Ukraine withdraws without guarantees and Russia attacks again in two years, it won't be American cities in artillery range. It will be European ones—or at least, European NATO members will face a choice between fighting or accepting that collective defense means nothing.

What Europe Is Really Saying

German Chancellor Merz told the conference that Russia's war will "only end when Russia is at least economically, potentially militarily, exhausted." That's not optimism. It's a recognition that Putin won't stop until forced to stop—and that negotiations without pressure are just Russian operational pauses.

Merz also described the war as forcing Europe to "return from a vacation from world history." But Europe isn't being allowed to return. It's being told to fund the war, absorb the refugees, prepare for the next phase—and then watch from the sidelines while Washington and Moscow decide the terms.

Britain tried to signal relevance by announcing another £540 million in weapons, including £150 million to buy US interceptors through NATO's Ukraine fund. It's the first time London has used this mechanism, which was designed as a workaround after Washington said it would no longer donate weapons directly. The subtext: Europe is being asked to pay for a war it has no voice in ending.

The Real Impediment

Here's what isn't being said clearly enough: Ukraine's refusal to withdraw without guarantees is not the obstacle to peace. Russia's refusal to accept any guarantees is. The Kremlin has consistently doubled down on maximalist demands—full control of four Ukrainian oblasts, limits on Ukraine's military, regime change in Kyiv, lifting of all sanctions, and NATO concessions extending far beyond Ukraine.

These aren't negotiating positions. They're war aims. And the longer Washington pretends territorial concessions alone will satisfy Moscow, the longer Europe remains in strategic limbo—committed to a war effort it can't conclude and a peace process it can't join.

Macron said any peace deal must "preserve European security" and "disincentivize Russia from attempting another invasion." The sequence the US has reportedly accepted does neither. It creates conditions for the next war while pretending to end this one.

What Comes Next

Geneva talks begin Tuesday. European leaders will read about the results in the papers, assuming anyone bothers to brief them. Ukraine will face pressure to make concessions before guarantees materialize. And Russia will pocket whatever it gains while rejecting any framework that limits its future options.

The question Europe should be asking isn't whether it gets a seat at the table. It's whether it's willing to accept a settlement negotiated without it—and whether it has any leverage left to reject one.

Merz was half right. Europe did return from a vacation from history. It just came back to find someone else had already rewritten the itinerary.