Paris, 17 February 2025
Informal Meeting on the Situation in Ukraine and European Security Challenges
French President Emmanuel Macron was is holding an informal meeting on the afternoon of Monday, February 17, 2025, with the heads of government of Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, and Denmark, as well as the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission, and the Secretary General of NATO.
This meeting aims to engage in consultations among European leaders on the situation in Ukraine and broader security challenges in Europe. Discussions may continue in other formats, with the objective of bringing together all interested partners committed to peace and security in Europe.
Source – French EU Delegation
Statement by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz: “We Welcome Talks About Peace for Ukraine”
[e-translated from the German original statement]
Chancellor Scholz participated in discussions in Paris on supporting Ukraine. Following the talks, he emphasized: “We must continue to support Ukraine. It must and can rely on us to do so.”
Paris, February 17, 2025
Chancellor Olaf Scholz:
Good day!
We gathered today with several European heads of state and government to discuss how we should proceed in supporting Ukraine, as well as the broader issues of European security and our own strength. These discussions are important, even though this is not the forum in which we make decisions. Those decisions are made in the European Council and within NATO structures, where we work together. Naturally, many voices contribute to these discussions and decisions, which makes this type of informal exchange necessary and appropriate in such a challenging time for Europe.
For us, it is very clear: We must continue to support Ukraine, and Ukraine must and can rely on us to do so. We welcome that there are discussions about peace, but it must be understood that this does not mean a dictated peace where Ukraine is forced to accept whatever is put before it. In this regard, we are closely aligned with President Zelenskyy and Ukraine as a whole.
For us, it is also clear: Ukraine must continue on its path toward the European Union. It must be able to defend its democracy and sovereignty, and it must be capable of maintaining a strong military of its own. This will require our support—together with our American and international partners—to ensure that Ukraine can achieve this in times of peace. These fundamental principles are non-negotiable, and it is important for all of us to make that clear.
At the same time, we discussed how to strengthen Europe’s own capabilities in security and defense, which is essential for the future. Some key decisions need to be made. We are already committed to spending 2% of our GDP on defense. While a few member states have not yet reached that level, they are moving in that direction.
For Europe’s future, it is crucial that all countries have the means to fulfill their security obligations. A serious and careful debate on this has now begun. I have personally stated that Germany would accept allowing EU member states to exceed current debt financing limits for defense spending. If a country wants to spend more than 2% of GDP on defense, this should not be blocked by EU fiscal rules. I believe we will find a way forward—perhaps through different mechanisms—to ensure that our long-term defense commitments are financially viable.
We must have a clear, long-term commitment to defense spending in Europe, especially given that we have already agreed within NATO to define concrete capability goals that each country must meet. From these goals, the specific responsibilities of each country will become clear. However, we must also develop practical solutions for fulfilling these commitments. That is why this debate is timely and closely linked to ongoing discussions within NATO. Security is at stake, and we must push forward decisively.
I would like to add that this applies to Germany as well. It is evident that our continued and necessary support for Ukraine can only be sustained if we find a separate financial solution for it. Any attempts to finance this support through budget cuts in other areas, such as infrastructure investments (whether railways, roads, or other projects) or social welfare, will fail. Such an approach would not have public support, and it is not necessary. Almost no one seriously believes that this could be funded through current budget allocations alone. For Germany, too, honesty is required at this moment.
This also applies to our own defense spending. If Germany is to continue spending 2% of GDP on defense, as we currently do—something we have achieved under my leadership—then within a short period, we will need to mobilize an additional 30 billion euros annually. This will only be possible if we adjust our debt rules under the German Constitution to create fiscal flexibility. The same applies if we are to finance additional commitments to meet NATO’s capability targets. Now is the time to make this clear to everyone.
Germany, like the rest of Europe, needs an open and honest debate about security challenges. We must address this issue head-on and openly discuss how we will finance the substantial investments required. I am ready for this conversation, and I urge everyone else to be ready as well.
Q&A Session
Question: Chancellor, does this mean that you are open to new joint European borrowing for defense?
Chancellor Olaf Scholz:
We are now discussing how best to proceed, and my proposal is to first give individual member states greater financial flexibility to meet their defense obligations. Of course, there will be many ideas in this debate, and we will have to examine them all carefully. If these proposals ensure fiscal stability, there will certainly be room for discussion. But my position is the one I have outlined.
Question: Would Germany be willing to contribute soldiers to a security guarantee for Ukraine?
Chancellor Olaf Scholz:
This discussion is premature and completely inappropriate at this time. To be frank, I am somewhat irritated by these debates. People are discussing outcomes of peace talks that have not even taken place and in which Ukraine has not participated. To speculate on possible results without Ukraine at the table is highly inappropriate, to put it plainly.
We do not even know what a peace agreement might look like. There are many different discussions—from international peacekeeping forces to other security arrangements. But right now, this is not the time for such speculation.
We are still in the middle of a brutal war waged by Russia, which continues with no regard for human life or international law. That is the reality.
At the same time, I want to make one thing absolutely clear, and I know that almost all European leaders agree with me on this:
There must be no division of security responsibilities between Europe and the United States.
NATO’s strength comes from acting together, sharing risks, and ensuring collective security. That must never be called into question.
We need to keep this perspective in mind as we navigate the challenges ahead.
Source of the German original statement: Government of Germany
Ukraine’s voice must be at the heart of any peace negotiations: UK statement at the UN Security Council
Statement by Ambassador Barbara Woodward, UK Permanent Representative to the UN, at the UN Security Council meeting on threats to international peace and security.
From: Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office and Dame Barbara Woodward DCMG OBE
Published: 17 February 2025
President, Russia is once again using this meeting in an attempt to distort the truth behind its illegal war. I will make three points about lessons.
First, the events of the last decade in Ukraine originate from a simple, sad reality: Russia’s imperialist ambition and failure to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Russia is a reliable party to agreements or treaties.
In freely signing up to the Minsk Agreements, Russia had the opportunity to ensure peace.
Russia and Ukraine were the sole parties to these agreements.
And this Council consistently called on all parties to implement their commitments in full, right up until the moment when President Putin decided that, on 22 February 2022, I quote the Minsk Agreement ‘no longer existed.’
Second, Russia continues to violate the UN Charter and international law in multiple ways.
In its war in Ukraine, Russia has targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure, hospitals, schools, energy infrastructure, it has abducted children, it has raped women, it has compromised nuclear safety and security, flouted international law, and tortured detainees.
For all these reasons, it is no surprise that the ICJ has issued an indictment on President Putin.
We will not tolerate Russia’s attempts to spread disinformation and divert this Council’s attention away from its atrocities, or efforts to subjugate a sovereign state.
Russia is the sole architect of the war in Ukraine and could end it now if it chose to by withdrawing its forces.
Third lesson is that the international community must stand firm in support of peace and security.
No one wants this war to end more than Ukraine.
But Putin’s so-called preconditions for talks – reaffirmed by his deputy Foreign Minister just a few days ago – have been that Ukraine withdraw from its own sovereign territory, and abandon its sovereign right to choose its alliances.
No country could or should accept this.
We can and must create the conditions for a just and lasting peace, which protects Ukraine’s security, sovereignty and independence.
This will require robust security arrangements from the outset, which ensure that Russia is never able to invade again.
Putin has shown time and again that he will break a weak deal.
The UK will continue to play our part.
We will continue to provide concrete support for Ukraine’s self-defence and security for as long as it is needed.
And we are clear that Ukraine’s voice must be at the heart of any negotiations.
Let me conclude, President, by reminding Russia that the suffering of so many Ukrainians today simply would not exist if Russia fulfilled its most basic obligation as a member of the United Nations: to respect the principles of the UN Charter.