Ukraine was the main topic of discussion at the year’s final European Council summit (EUCO) on Thursday, December 19th. EU leaders agreed that the continued arming of Ukraine remains a priority, but no longer to “win” the war, but rather to ensure that Zelensky’s government is in the strongest possible position when the time comes for peace talks with Russia.
In the final resolution adopted at the end of the summit, the Council re-confirms the EU’s “unwavering commitment” to providing further financial and military support to Ukraine “as long as it takes”; re-affirms its support for a “comprehensive, just, and lasting peace” based on international law; and maintains that no “initiative regarding [peace] in Ukraine [shall] be taken without Ukraine.”
One crucial formula at the end of the first paragraph, however, was changed at the last minute. As opposed to the Council’s briefing published before the summit, which boldly stated that “Ukraine must win,” the resolution uses slightly more vague language: “Russia must not prevail.”
Pressed by journalists, a Council official later said the initial language on the website was a “mistake” and will be rectified shortly. However, the contradiction between what Brussels and member states believe to be the end of the war was made apparent during the post-summit press conference as well.
While the Commission’s new foreign affairs chief, Kaja Kallas, insisted on Ukraine’s victory being the ultimate goal—which, at least according to Zelensky’s ‘Peace Formula,’ includes reclaiming all occupied territories—EUCO President António Costa, being more mindful of the of leaders’ consensus, put it somewhat differently. “International law must prevail, and the invasion must be defeated,” Costa said.
At the same time, the Council president stressed that only Ukraine can define what the eventual peace would look like and what the conditions for negotiations will be. He also asked leaders not to “speculate about different scenarios,” but to focus on strengthening Ukraine “for all scenarios.”
“The European Union is ready to do what it takes, for as long as it takes, to put Ukraine in a position of strength for what comes next,” Costa said. “This is the message that we gave to President Zelensky.”
Zelensky, who was also invited to the summit, warned against being pushed toward a settlement too early, saying that peace on Russia’s terms would only lead to the renewal of the conflict. It was a clear jab at the incoming Trump presidency in the U.S. and the few like-minded EU allies, such as Hungary and Slovakia, whose goal is to find a solution as soon as possible. In contrast, Zelensky argued he only needed one more year to achieve the desired conditions for peace on Kyiv’s terms, but only if the West kept supplying Ukraine with enough military equipment.
It is clear that European support for continuing the war is still there, but the general enthusiasm for prolonged attrition is slowly waning after nearly three years of conflict. The resolution promises the moon and stars in terms of military aid, but Europe’s military-industrial output is nowhere near what is needed for Ukraine’s preferred end goal. If Trump does decide to scale back U.S. support, the EU would have no means of filling the gap.
Furthermore, Zelensky repeatedly stated that the main condition for Kyiv is receiving security guarantees from NATO—that is, from the U.S. as well, and not just from the European allies. “It is very important for us to have both on board, the United States of America and Europeans,” the president said, adding that Europe’s guarantees “won’t be sufficient.”
When asked about whether they agree with Zelensky and what this means for achieving a realistic end goal, both Costa and EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen gave vague and evasive answers. They only repeated the script by saying the EU will continue to support Ukraine until its conditions are met and only Kyiv can decide when that point will be.
The core problem, therefore, remains. If Ukraine insists on joining NATO—the very thing Russia’s invasion sought to prevent—it will take a lot more time, money, and weapons than what Brussels is comfortable admitting. In the end, it will all come down to Trump, and a concession of either NATO membership or territorial claims is still on the table. The EU leaders know this, otherwise, there would have been no need to change a few words to save themselves from the eventual embarrassment.
