Though probably nobody expected that President Trump kept ‘business as usual’, the pace and extent of the twist(s) left European leaders clutching their pearls as they watched from the sidelines as the U.S. engaged in clandestine dialogues with Russia over the Ukraine conflict.
Surely, it was to be ‘America First’, but only a few would have bet that Trump would label Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a ‘dictator’, let alone accusing him of squandering American aid and prolonging the conflict for personal gain.
This has left European dignitaries in a state of dissonance.
Both (yet) German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer have rushed to Zelensky’s defence, supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty. Starmer, in particular, defended Zelensky’s decision to suspend elections during wartime, emphasizing the necessity of such measures in the face of existential threats.
The shock shouldn’t be this big, though.
Trump has consistently championed a swift resolution to the Ukrainian conflict, a motif that resonated with his electorate. The American voters, weary of funding foreign overtures, applauded his promise to end overseas engagements. Trump also understood that the extended conflict only fortified Russia’s military crescendo, and, even more worryingly (from American point of view, anyways) led to the solidifying of Russian-Chinese relations.
A formidable counterpoint to America’s global lead.
The leaders of the EU failed to keep up with the pace of change.
Still clinging to ‘value-based diplomacy’, they are struggling to find their way amidst the harsh realities of ‘realpolitik’.
No wonder EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas was left lamenting, ‘Any agreement without European and Ukrainian participation would fail’. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot joined in, warning against ‘peace through weakness’ and advocating for a solution that reflects Europe’s strength.
In a moment when the U.S. chose to set the terms.
Prioritizing national interests and responding to the wishes of its citizens, instead of following abstract ideas and neglecting the electorate, as many Europe do.
The return of ‘realpolitik’ to the global stage serves as a poignant reminder that in the grand concert of international relations, interests often overshadow ideals. And the EU, if it wishes to remain relevant (to quote Barrot, ‘reflect its strength’), must attune itself to this reality unless it wants to play a minor role in the shadow of Washington.
The shock of the ‘Ukrainian twist’ should serve as a wake-up call for European leaders to transition from mere rhetoric to decisive action.
The ongoing conflict has not only inflicted economic and political turmoil upon Europe but has also sown seeds of internal discord. Without a proactive stance, Europe risks observing a historical turning point from the sidelines, reminiscent of the post-World War II era or the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Europe has been caught off guard twice in Ukraine: once, when the conflict started and now, when conclusion suddenly drew close. Irrespective how many times European leaders convene for summits in Paris.
It is imperative (should be, at least) to awaken from complacency and mature in strategy. And brace for the harsh reality: should the conflict end, Europe may find itself shouldering the monumental task of reconstructing Ukraine alone.
An endeavour pledged (again) with noble intent but fraught with financial peril. Investing in a Ukraine that remains outside the protective umbrellas of the EU and NATO offers scant assurance for the resources committed.
The more so as the economic ramifications of the prolonged conflict have already begun to reverberate throughout the continent, forming an intricate web of economic interests and challenges. Think financial institutions, like UniCredit, that have found themselves entangled in the complexities of operating within Russia amidst the turmoil. CEO Andrea Orcel has indicated that the resolution of the conflict could enable the bank to expedite its exit from Russia on better financial terms.
The EU should be ready to navigate this challenge with strategic foresight instead of ad hoc decisions.
The time has come for European leaders to contribute meaningfully to the shaping of a future that safeguards their interests.
