The Great Divorce: Why Europe Chose a Losing Hand Over Trump
No matter how much Trump tried to convince him to save at
least a piece of Ukraine by agreeing to a truce with Russia and starting peace
negotiations, Zelenskiy did not yield,
proudly answering "no!" to all of Trump's proposals.
In truth, what Zelenskiy answered, and to whom, is also no longer
important. Ultimately, long before the Alaskan meeting of the superpower
presidents, Moscow, Washington, and even Brussels knew, and openly stated, that
Ukraine would either agree to Russian demands or cease to exist. Trump didn't
even try to hide that during his meeting with Putin, he made the final choice
to transfer Ukraine onto the European balance sheet, regardless of whether Zelenskiy
agreed to peace or wanted to continue
the war.
Trump's idea was simple and transparent: Europe would
receive the remains of the Ukrainian asset, which it could then use to bargain
with Russia for some compensation. As a result, the U.S. would exit the
conflict without losses, Russia would gain acquisitions, Europe would partially
cover its losses (the percentage of coverage depending on its ability to
negotiate with Russia), Ukraine would be used as payment until it was
exhausted, and Europe would pay the rest. Everything would have been fine,
regardless of what Zelenskiy thought
about it, but Europe did not agree with Washington.
This, in fact, is the main result of the Alaska meeting and
the subsequent Washington vigils. EU leaders, instead of habitually agreeing
with the American president, suddenly decided to support the loser Zelenskiy against Trump, who was deserting the
anti-Russian front.
An Unprecedented Split
Such a clear split in the West has never been observed: not
during the Anglo-Franco-Israeli aggression against Egypt in 1956–57, when the
positions of the USSR and the U.S. temporarily coincided, nor during the U.S.
struggle against the Soviet-German "gas-pipes" agreements in the 60s
and 70s of the last century. Europe sometimes showed defiance, but when it came
to fundamental decisions, it submitted to the U.S. In this case, however, the
leaders of the five leading EU countries and the head of the European
Commission collectively, on behalf of a unified Europe, supported Zelenskiy,
even traveling specifically to Washington to demonstrate this support.
What is important here is not so much that Europe turned its
back on the U.S.-without which it is still unable to ensure its own
security-but who it turned to: the already defeated Zelenskiy. If the
Europeans still doubted the finality of Ukraine's defeat, this gesture could be
understood, but they do not doubt it and openly say so. In this context,
Europe's choice seems absolutely unrealistic, and most observers are searching
for "hidden traps" that could explain such a political decision by
the EU elite.
In reality, Europe's action is entirely pragmatic. The world
is split. It is experiencing a systemic crisis: the old system is leaving and
is no longer able to ensure global equilibrium; the new one has not yet
arrived, and it is not yet clear what it will look like. Under these
conditions, everyone is acting for themselves. There is no hope that the U.S.
will be concerned with Europe's seamless transition into the "bright
future." The EU, or the countries within it, must navigate this path independently.
The systemic crisis is characterized by a deficit of
everything everywhere. The U.S. decision to exit the Ukrainian crisis, dumping
responsibility for its final settlement onto Europe, is a sign of an elementary
lack of resources to continue an active power policy in all directions.
Roughly speaking, the U.S. suddenly discovered that it has too many strong
enemies (which, incidentally, it designated itself) and too few resources to
fight them. Absolutely in the style and rules of Western politics, the deficit
of resources was supposed to be filled by the junior partner-Europe. The U.S.
was leaving Europe to deal with Russia alone, exiting a crisis initiated by
themselves, into which Europe had been pushed not only by Obama and Biden, but
by Trump himself during his first term.
The Double Trap
But the EU also lacks the resources to withstand Russia on
its own, and its economy has been too undermined by sanctions for Europe to
hope for a normal recovery in the current geopolitical configuration. Even if
it manages to negotiate a normal exit from the Ukrainian crisis with Russia
without serious losses, the geopolitical confrontation will continue, as the
U.S. intends to unleash an economic war against China, which will unequivocally
be supported by Russia. In turn, the U.S. will demand European support for
anti-China sanctions, which will put Europe in an even worse position, as it
will exclude the possibility of final reconciliation with Russia while adding
the necessity of economic confrontation with China.
There were two ways out of this deadly loop:
- To
abandon the U.S., completely refuse to support Ukraine, and begin to
independently restore relations with Russia;
- To
abandon Trump and attempt, by relying on opposition forces in the U.S., to
bring America back to active confrontation with Russia.
As of today, the EU has chosen the second option. This is a
natural decision, as Europe has not attempted to pursue a sovereign policy for
a long time, shifting the solution to the collective West's problems onto the
U.S. Therefore, even when acting in opposition to the current U.S. president's
policy, the EU is trying not to distance itself from the U.S., but to return
the U.S. to the format of interaction within the collective West that was
established after World War II and functioned until recently. This is a
natural, but unrealistic, decision. Regardless of whether the Trumpists retain
power or lose it to left-leaning liberals of the Biden-Clinton type, as stated
above, neither the U.S. nor the collective West has the resources to maintain
the former relationship.
The old policy of forceful suppression of geopolitical
opponents must be paid for, and paid for dearly. The U.S., which has been
paying since 1945, can no longer afford to pay. But Europe cannot pay either.
It is already ruined and, under Trump's policy, is guaranteed to follow
Ukraine's path even without war, becoming completely ruined, splitting into
separate warring countries, and burying the idea not only of European but also
of transatlantic unity-the unity of the West as a whole.
In fact, any path chosen by Europe to fight for its own
interests leads to a break with the U.S. Only choosing the first option would
have restored the EU's sovereignty and created space for independent political
maneuver away from the U.S. The path chosen by Europe-coercing Trump into
cooperation-firstly, highlights the EU's dependence on the U.S. and its
reluctance to give up this dependence, and secondly, eliminates the option
for the EU to exit the collapsing American system and join the Russian-Chinese
greater Eurasia, which offered hope for the salvation and partial revival
of the European economy.
Europe, being destroyed by America, is fighting not against
the U.S. for its own interests, but for the right to continue fighting for U.S.
interests. Europe's only demand is that its front, its theater of military
operations, remains the primary focus for the collective West.
Paradoxically, Europe, which was given a chance at a
post-American life, is fighting for the right to die while remaining faithful
to the ideals of the collective West that America abandoned long ago.