OPEN LETTER: Merz, Macron, Starmer, Meloni, Tusk — Europe Finally Speaking With One Voice for Ukraine

Five leaders, one message

Ladies and gentlemen, leaders of Europe, allow me to address this open letter to you following your meeting in Berlin on June 24, 2026. What you accomplished that day — bringing together Chancellor Friedrich Merz, President Emmanuel Macron, Prime Minister Keir Starmer, President of the Council Giorgia Meloni, and Prime Minister Donald Tusk in the E5 format — is not a small thing. In a world where allies are pulling apart, where transatlantic fault lines are widening, and where Vladimir Putin is betting precisely on your division, you displayed a remarkable unity. Ukraine needs that unity to be more than a facade.

Your joint statement reaffirmed "strong and substantial support" for Ukraine, a commitment to increase defence spending, and the will to bring Kyiv "closer to NATO." Those words matter. But words do not advance Ukrainian brigades. Weapons, funding, and the political will to hold for the long haul — that is what actually changes the course of this war. That is what I want to talk to you about.

The Ankara context that changes everything

Your meeting in Berlin was not spontaneous — it was calculated to send a coordinated signal ahead of the Ankara NATO Summit on July 7 and 8, 2026. That summit will bring together the leaders of the Alliance's 32 nations, including President Donald Trump. The stakes are immense: the transatlantic relationship, the future of American support for Ukraine, and the conditions for a possible ceasefire or negotiated peace. By going to Ankara with a unified European position, you strengthen your collective weight in negotiations with Washington.

Five European leaders capable of speaking with one voice on Ukraine — that is already a political miracle in itself. But the real question is not the Berlin rhetoric. It is simple: will your words translate into dollars, ammunition, and concrete weapons systems? Ukraine is waiting for the answer.

The symbolic and real weight of Berlin

Chancellor Merz, you declared that "the message to Russia is clear: Ukraine remains resilient." It is a fine formula. But Ukrainian resilience does not feed on formulas — it feeds on tanks, artillery shells, air defence systems, and financing. Germany has made considerable progress since the hesitations of 2022: the deliveries of Leopard 2 tanks, IRIS-T systems, contributions to the European Peace Facility. But Germany remains below what its economic power would allow it to do.

You spoke of increasing defence spending and strengthening transatlantic relations with the United States. Both are laudable goals. But I urge you, Chancellor, not to let domestic economic considerations — Germany's traditional reluctance around rearmament — slow aid to Ukraine at this critical moment. History will judge your tenure by that measure.

European unity as leverage in negotiations with Trump

Chancellor Merz emphasized that a successful Ankara summit would strengthen transatlantic relations with the United States. That is true — but this strength comes only if Europe arrives united and with concrete commitments. President Trump respects strength and pragmatism. A Europe that increases its defence spending, carries its share of the burden, and speaks with a coordinated voice is a Europe that Trump cannot ignore. A divided, hesitant Europe dependent on Washington for every decision will be treated with contempt.

Merz invited Trump to hear a message of European unity. That is shrewd. Trump understands strength. A Europe that speaks with one voice in Ankara is a Europe that Washington must respect. But that voice must be followed by action — not just communiqués.

A personal commitment many are waiting to see confirmed

President Macron, you have been one of the most bold European leaders in pro-Ukraine rhetoric. Your March 2024 speech not ruling out sending Western troops, your statements on the necessity that Russia must not win — all of it created expectations. The reality of French deliveries to Ukraine has sometimes struggled to keep pace with your words. In Berlin, you also raised the possibility of a Western military operation in the Strait of Hormuz — a remarkable geopolitical opening showing that your vision extends beyond Ukraine.

Your European colleagues praised you for your "solid strategic choices." Now, President, those choices must materialize into weapons systems delivered, reconstruction financing, and unambiguous diplomatic leadership at the Ankara Summit. France holds a seat on the UN Security Council, a robust defence industry, and a respected voice in the world. Use those assets.

The seizure of the phantom tanker as a strong signal

It is worth noting that, the very day before your Berlin meeting, the French navy boarded a fifth Russian "shadow fleet" tanker near Sicily — confirming that France matches words with deeds when it comes to sanctions enforcement. These concrete actions speak louder than speeches. Keep going.

Macron is the most politically ambiguous figure of this war — capable of visionary words and paralyzing hesitation in the same week. In Berlin, he seemed decided. Let us hope it is the right Macron who goes to Ankara.

A prime minister praised by his peers

Prime Minister Starmer, your European peers paid you genuine tribute at the Berlin meeting. Chancellor Merz praised your "team spirit"; President Macron your "solid strategic choices"; President Meloni your "superb collaboration"; Prime Minister Tusk said your commitment allowed Europe to "temporarily forget Brexit." That is no small thing. The United Kingdom, under your leadership, has maintained and even strengthened its support for Ukraine — through weapons deliveries, training Ukrainian soldiers on British soil, and sustained diplomatic engagement.

British policy toward Ukraine now extends beyond your term — the commitments have been formalized to ensure continuity regardless of changes in government. It is a remarkable political maturity in an era of great instability. The United Kingdom has chosen the right side of history, and that deserves recognition.

The Smyrtos tanker affair: a courageous decision awaits

But Prime Minister, there is a pending decision that could symbolically define your commitment to Ukraine: the sale of the oil seized aboard the tanker Smyrtos — some 700,000 barrels worth £35 million — to directly fund Ukraine's war effort. Russia has threatened legal action and denounced this plan as "piracy." Do not let it intimidate you. This is Russian oil seized under legally imposed sanctions. Its conversion into military aid for Ukraine is an act of justice.

Sell the Smyrtos oil to arm Ukraine — Moscow shouts piracy. I call it poetry. Using the oil stolen by Putin's shadow fleet to fund the defence of his victims: that is a sanction that makes sense.

A pro-Ukraine Italy despite internal pressures

President of the Council Meloni, your presence in Berlin and your signature on the joint declaration carry particular meaning. Your founding party — Brothers of Italy — was historically marked by a certain sympathy for authoritarian regimes. Your resolute commitment to Ukraine and NATO, despite pressure from some of your voters and coalition partners, represents a genuine act of political courage. Italy under your leadership has maintained its weapons deliveries to Ukraine and its support for sanctions against Russia.

You also raised the possibility of a Western military operation in the Strait of Hormuz — a bold positioning showing a geopolitical vision that goes beyond simple support for Ukraine. This vision of a Europe capable of projecting its military power where its interests are threatened is precisely what the Atlantic Alliance needs.

Rome's pressures on the European trajectory

Italy must nonetheless resolve an internal tension: some of your domestic political allies remain drawn to pro-Russian positions. This tension resurfaces regularly in budget debates over military aid. President of the Council, the Berlin meeting gave you the opportunity to assert your European position without ambiguity. Use that political momentum to impose coherence on your governing coalition.

Meloni in Berlin, standing beside Macron and Starmer to defend Ukraine — it is the kind of scene that would not have been easy to predict in 2022. Geopolitics transforms politicians. Sometimes for the better.

Warsaw, sentinel of eastern Europe

Prime Minister Tusk, Poland is the NATO country that understands the Russian threat most clearly — for painful historical reasons you do not need to explain to your compatriots. Poland has been one of the most generous countries toward Ukraine — in humanitarian aid, in hosting refugees, in weapons deliveries, in diplomatic support. Warsaw is also the essential logistical hub through which a large share of Western military equipment transits to Ukraine.

You said that Starmer's commitment helped Europe "temporarily forget Brexit." That phrase captures the European mindset in the face of the Russian threat: when the house is burning, you do not argue over lease details. Transeuropean solidarity against Putin is the most effective answer to his bet on Western division.

The Ankara summit: your collective responsibilities

Prime Minister Tusk, your country shares a border with Belarus — a vassal state of Russia that serves as a launch platform for Russian drones and missiles targeting Ukraine. The geopolitical tension bearing down on Ukraine bears directly on your border. That is why your voice at the Ankara Summit will be particularly heeded — you speak not only as an ally of Ukraine, but as a neighbour directly exposed to the threat.

Tusk understands in his gut what it means to have Russia as a neighbour. That visceral understanding is a precious asset in NATO debates. When Warsaw speaks of the Russian threat, European capitals should listen with more attention than they have in the past.

The contours of rapprochement without formal membership

Your joint statement in Berlin includes the will to bring Ukraine "closer to NATO." This formulation is deliberately ambiguous — it sidesteps the question of formal membership, which requires consensus from all member nations, including the United States, and is blocked partly by hesitations among certain members. But rapprochement without membership has real substance: growing interoperability of weapons systems, Ukrainian participation in NATO exercises, access to the Alliance's collective intelligence, strengthened bilateral security guarantees.

These measures do not replace Article 5 — the mutual defence clause — but they create a progressive safety net that discourages Moscow's reconquest ambitions after a possible cessation of hostilities. It is pragmatic, perhaps even insufficient — but it is better than nothing.

The risk of rhetoric without substance

There is a real danger in phrases like "closer to NATO": they allow everyone to shelter behind constructive ambiguity while avoiding hard decisions. If this rapprochement does not translate into concrete, measurable, and irreversible commitments before the Ankara Summit, it will remain an empty formula that Putin will read as proof of Western unwillingness to follow through. Be precise. Be courageous.

Closer to NATO — the formula that lets everyone agree without promising anything specific. I understand the diplomacy of words. But Ukraine lives in the reality of facts. What it needs to hear is what this proximity means concretely if war resumes.

International law and its guardians

The war in Ukraine is a flagrant violation of fundamental principles of international law: territorial sovereignty, the prohibition of aggression, the protection of civilians. These principles are worth nothing if the international community does not defend them in practice, beyond verbal condemnations. The United Nations Charter, the resolutions of the General Assembly, the Rome Statute — all of these texts are being tested by Russian actions in Ukraine. Their credibility depends on the response their signatories provide.

Nations that supply weapons to Russia — directly, like North Korea and Iran, or indirectly through sanctions-evasion channels — bear some responsibility for every Ukrainian civilian killed, every infrastructure destroyed, every family displaced. That responsibility must be named, documented, and sanctioned with all the rigour that liberal democracies are capable of.

Ukraine and the future of the world order

What is at stake in Ukraine goes far beyond Ukrainian borders. If a nuclear power can conquer the territory of a sovereign neighbour with impunity, if security guarantees given in exchange for nuclear disarmament — the 1994 Budapest Memorandum — can be violated without consequences, then the entire edifice of international relations built since 1945 is called into question. Taiwan, Georgia, Moldova, the Baltic states — all are watching what happens in Ukraine and drawing conclusions about their own security.

Supporting Ukraine until it can restore its territorial integrity is not a matter of generosity — it is a matter of vital interest for the world order. That is why the leaders who gathered in Berlin on June 24, 2026, and who will meet again in Ankara for the peace summit, carry on their shoulders a responsibility that extends beyond their respective electoral mandates.

We are at a turning point in history. The decisions made in the coming months — on weapons, sanctions, negotiations — will determine not only Ukraine's fate, but the credibility of the international order for the next several decades. That is a heavy burden for politicians accustomed to thinking in electoral cycles.

Unity as the answer to Putin

Ladies and gentlemen, your Berlin meeting showed that Europe can still speak with one voice. That is an important signal sent to Moscow — which has been betting on your division from day one — and to Washington, which asks Europe to carry its share of the burden. But a meeting does not make policy, and a communiqué does not fight a war. The true test of your unity will come in Ankara, in the discussions on security guarantees for Ukraine, NATO defence spending, and the future of American support.

Ukraine is watching you

While you held your meeting in an air-conditioned room in Berlin, Ukrainian soldiers were dying on the Donbas lines. While you signed your joint statement, Russian missiles were falling on Ukrainian cities. Ukraine is watching you — with hope, with gratitude for the support already given, and with understandable impatience at the delays and ambiguities. Go to Ankara with a strong position. Come back with concrete commitments. History — and Ukraine — would not forgive you otherwise.

From Berlin to Ankara, history is being written right now. The nations that choose political courage — arming Ukraine, sanctioning Russia, integrating Ukraine into Western structures — will be on the right side of history. Those that hesitate will bear the responsibility for the consequences of that hesitation.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.