First, the calculated flattery. Then three big signals about the future of Europe

There is no limit to the amount of praise Donald Trump can soak up – and eight European leaders just proved it.

The visitors to the White House made sure to soften the American president with a jumbo pack of soft soap to guard against an angry clash that might wreck their hopes.

The flattery was lavish but necessary. Europe cannot rely on Trump, but it cannot afford to antagonise him. And it will only face bigger dangers if he is fooled by honeyed words from Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky needed the seven allies with him in the room. This was smart diplomacy by the major European democracies, and it gave Trump what he craves: more spectacle, more attention, and more praise.

Once the meeting was over, with its inconclusive outcome, the praise flowed again because the Europeans wanted to remind everyone of Trump’s promises. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, for instance, thanked him for a clear commitment to ensuring Ukrainian children are reunited with their loved ones.

The Europeans had to use their gratitude to try to hold the American president to his own words. This dynamic revealed what the meeting so clearly lacked: a shared resolve about what should come next.

There was no collective statement because there was no collective will. Trump listened to the visitors, but he was not one of them. In theory, he was an ally under the NATO pact. In fact, he felt he was doing them a favour by getting involved.

The most telling image of the day was the photograph of the talks in the Oval Office after the public remarks for the TV cameras. It showed Trump at his desk as he faced the eight leaders – the potentate and the supplicants. He could help them if he wanted. Or not.

For some, the outcome of the meeting was Trump’s idea that Zelensky and Putin would meet to negotiate terms before he joined them for trilateral talks. For others, it was Trump’s signal that he would help Europe with security guarantees. Others focused on Zelensky’s promise to buy huge sums of American weapons, funded by European allies.

Big signals

This conveyed a sense of confusion about the results. So did the plan for a meeting between Zelensky and Putin: is it Trump thinking aloud, or will it really happen? All of these were potential steps, not hard decisions. They were not actually outcomes.

Even so, there were three big signals from this meeting.

First, the security guarantees to protect Ukraine against further aggression. These are problematic because Trump will not sign up to something like Article 5 of the NATO treaty – the provision that suggests an attack on one member is an attack on all. Signing this would require the US to mobilise if Putin broke a peace deal and started another conflict with Ukraine.

Who could trust Trump to honour such an agreement even if he signed it? The security guarantees are meant to give Ukraine confidence it will not be invaded by Russia again, but they remain a vague concept.

The key word came after the meeting, when Trump said the guarantees would be provided by European countries with “co-ordination” from the US. This does not place any great obligation on the US and is a far weaker signal than the Europeans wanted.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have a “coalition of the willing” agreement to send peacekeepers into Ukraine if the war ends – with Australia willing to consider helping – but this is uncertain. It is useful as a message to Trump that Europe will step up. The details depend on any settlement with Putin.

With Trump so clearly reluctant to offer security guarantees with real power, the onus is on Starmer and Macron to give the coalition of the willing real meaning.

Second, the plan for Ukraine to buy more weapons. This is essential but requires Trump to depart from the hesitancy of the Biden years. At every stage of this war, Ukraine has been shackled by the conditions placed on the American weapons it can use – for instance, whether it can strike Russian targets with rocket artillery like the HIMARS and ATACMS.

Trump will stop donating weapons to Ukraine and will expect Europe to pay for every shipment. The US defence industry will make money. But will Trump put limits on the weapons if Putin calls to complain?

Third, the question of territory. Zelensky has rejected “land swaps” with Russia in the past, but did not do so vehemently at the White House. There appears to be some acceptance that Ukraine cannot hope to recover all the land seized by Russia. Trump is trying to wear the Europeans down on this point.

A settlement that gives up Ukrainian land represents a handsome victory for Putin, of course. It is the Munich scenario: that giving a strongman the land he covets only makes him hungry for more.

It seems incredible that America would ask Europe to walk into this nightmare again, but it should not be a surprise after seven months of the second Trump administration. Trump is broadly aligned with the Russian leader on keeping the US out of a binding obligation to Ukraine and giving up Ukrainian land to settle the war.

Europe is on its own. The only security guarantee that counts will be the volume of weaponry it can make or buy.

No amount of flattery will change that.

Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for our weekly What in the World newsletter.