More talks: Zelenskyy in London

The gathering in London today between President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and a cluster of senior European leaders - Britain's Kier Starmer, Germany's Friedrich Merz and France's Emmanuel Macron - marks another attempt to re-anchor a continent unsettled by war, uncertain alliances and wavering political will. Such summits are often laden with symbolism, but on this occasion the symbolism is married to a palpable sense of urgency. Ukraine enters the winter of 2025 facing unprecedented pressure upon her energy grid, renewed Russian offensives along several fronts and political turbulence in capitals that had once proclaimed steadfast unity. The question the international community must therefore ask is not whether such talks are necessary, but what tangible outcomes might realistically follow from them. In the background are a series of peace talks mediated by the United States, the details of which have not been disclosed but that seem to be going nowhere by reason of Moscow's maximalist demands. Ukrainian representatives spent a long weekend reviewing the terms of a peace agreement in Miami with US representatives, but there is no sense that the peace terms America is juggling between the parties can hope to bridge the enormous gap between Russia's war of imperial aggression and Ukraine's determination to maintain territorial and political sovereignty.

What, then, can the parties usefully discuss, aside from how to manage President Trump's administration and its haphazard attempts at peace mediation? At the forefront lies the immediate military agenda. Ukraine’s Armed Forces require uninterrupted supplies of ammunition, air-defence systems and components for both precision-guided and loitering munitions. In recent months European defence production has begun to shift from peacetime inertia to wartime necessity, yet bottlenecks persist: specialised electronics, explosives precursors and air-to-air missile stockpiles have all proved slower to replenish than political rhetoric might suggest. London offers a venue in which several European Union and non-EU states can synchronise procurement schedules and remove barriers that have previously impeded continent-wide supply chains. Even modest steps in this direction, such as common contracting for artillery rounds or guaranteed long-term orders for air-defence interceptors, may have disproportionate impact on Ukraine’s battlefield resilience through the winter months.

Equally urgent is the question of air defence for Ukraine’s vulnerable cities. The destructive strikes upon Lviv’s energy infrastructure demonstrate how Russia has calibrated her strategy to exploit gaps in Ukrainian coverage. European states possess not only Patriot and SAMP/T batteries but also the political discretion to redeploy them. In London President Zelenskyy’s principal diplomatic objective is likely to be a commitment to form an integrated European-Ukrainian air-defence corridor, ensuring that key urban and industrial centres receive layered protection. While no European leader can conjure additional systems overnight, an agreement to rotate batteries or to station rapid-reaction maintenance teams within Ukraine would be a material achievement.

Financial assistance is another pillar of today’s discussions. Ukraine’s budgetary deficit remains substantial, exacerbated by defence spending, emergency reconstruction and the decline in revenue caused by repeated blackouts. The European Union has debated long-term macro-financial support packages, but fragmentation within several member states has slowed disbursement. Bringing those leaders together in London creates an opportunity to reaffirm the principle of multi-year financial support insulated from domestic political cycles. Should Zelenskyy secure consensus on an automatic stabilisation mechanism—whereby funds are released in line with Ukraine’s emergency needs rather than subject to protracted parliamentary negotiation—Kyiv’s fiscal position would be significantly strengthened.

Yet the London talks are not solely about immediate wartime necessities. They are also part of the long diplomatic arc of Ukraine’s European integration. Candidate status, accession methodologies and interim sectoral integration projects require sustained political attention if they are not to become abstractions. The presence of European leaders provides Zelenskyy a platform to advance the argument that Ukraine’s accession is not a distant aspiration but a strategic imperative for the continent. Even if formal accession talks remain slow, agreements on digital integration, energy synchronisation and security guarantees could be advanced. London, outside the European Union yet deeply engaged in Ukrainian support, is a poignant setting for such debates, reminding Europe that security commitments transcend institutional boundaries.

Another critical dimension concerns sanctions enforcement, which has become increasingly porous as Russia adapts to restrictions. The revelations regarding Western electronics in Russian drones have alarmed policymakers. A focused commitment in London to reinforce customs cooperation, tighten re-export controls and collaborate with private industry on end-use monitoring could obstruct the channels through which sanctioned components reach Russia’s military. If the talks result in a joint enforcement taskforce with authority to coordinate across jurisdictions, this would mark a significant strengthening of Europe’s sanctions architecture.

In a broader geopolitical sense, today’s discussions also serve a performative function. They signal to Moscow that Ukraine retains high-level backing despite the war’s attritional nature and ambiguous US posturing. Yet performative gestures should not be dismissed: morale in both Ukrainian society and her Armed Forces hinges in part upon visible international commitment. The simple fact of Zelenskyy standing beside European leaders in London projects an image of unity at a time when Russia seeks to persuade herself and others that Europe is growing fatigued.

Nevertheless one must temper expectations. Europe faces electoral transitions, inflationary pressures, and widening ideological divides. National leaders must balance domestic scepticism with strategic prudence. Some will hesitate to make open-ended security guarantees; others will press for diplomatic framing that keeps channels with Moscow notionally open. Hence the London summit may yield incremental rather than sweeping advances. But in the geopolitical climate of late 2025, incrementalism is not synonymous with inadequacy. A sequence of coherent small steps—coordinated defence procurement, interim financial stabilisation, strengthened sanctions enforcement and clearer political messaging—may cumulatively exert more influence than grandiose declarations unbacked by material commitments.

If the London talks succeed in reinforcing these practical measures, they will have achieved more than symbolic unity. They will have demonstrated that Europe recognises the war in Ukraine not as a distant conflict but as the crucible in which the future of continental security is being shaped. And for Kyiv, struggling under bombardment, grappling with energy shortages and fighting to maintain her sovereignty, even a modest strengthening of European resolve could make a measurable difference in the months ahead. Finally, the talks provide an opportunity for Europe's most influential leaders to manage the message to Washington, DC: that Europe has no intention of giving up on Ukraine, or of forcing upon her the terms of a peace plan that fundamentally compromises Ukrainian sovereignty.