The illusions of the EU and Ukraine lead us to a more dangerous future

The leaders of Europe, the American neoconservators that appeared after the Cold War and those who dream of Fukuyama's « end » will be peace in Ukraine, according to the last World War. Such peace is not the most common in history and there is a high risk for it to lead to a new war, perhaps even a worldwide.

The conflict of Russia with the West begins to have more in common with the 30th -century war than with a modern World War. The Ukraine war is the hot phase of a conflict that started, officially, at the 2007 Munich security conference, when President Vladimir Putin announced the bankruptcy of America led. It's been 20 years from that time soon. More than 15 years have passed since the NATO Summit in Bucharest, considered the direct trigger of the hot war in Ukraine. The warning came in that year, with the Russo-Georgian war. The Russian intervention in Syria and then the open war in Ukraine followed. It is clear that, even under the conditions of Russia's failure in Syria (or maybe because of the Syrian failure), the Kremlin will continue to force on the Ukraine front as long as it will not reach a peace in the terms required by the West.

It is dangerous for Europe to insist on a victory in Ukraine. The United States provides 70% of the combined expenses of all NATO member states. In 2023-2024, these expenses exceeded $ 850 billion; Germany, the largest European contributor had only $ 68 billion. The illustration of NATO imbalances by the percentage of the GDP allocated to the defense (an aspect that Insist including Donald Trump) is misleading. Not the percentage of GDP will count in the case of a hot conflict, but the amounts in absolute figures put into play. And when we talk about dollars, not percentages, it is clear that the United States is the irreplaceable power behind NATO, but also the milking cow for many of the European « warriors ». Europe has spent more dollars for Ukraine, shows statistics, but did it at a strictly financial level, while at the military level it did not offer anything. And the military aid of all EU member states fails to equal US military aid so far. European leaders argue that the war should continue without the support of the US, but it is clear that they do not have the ability to increase their military and financial contribution only to keep Ukraine in the current situation-with the front line at a walk and human losses that will not be able to replace.

Europe has been involved in this war without a credible strategy. The EU strategy is the « solidarity » and the ostentatious display of the virtue of Europeans in posts on social platforms, Ukrainian flags and beautiful words.

A real strategy had to have main targets, but also a second or third desirable scenario, as well as an outing path. Europe has nothing: neither the army, nor military production, nor even enough funds for the financial support of Ukraine. The UK, who is trying to approach Trump's America, shows a greater generosity for the defense budget, but this means only an increase to 2.5% of GDP. And the EU provides for only an increase to 3% of GDP by 2030. Under these conditions, writes Wolfgang Munchau, the statement of the head of EU diplomacy, Estonian Kaja Kalls, as « the free world needs a new leader » and that this leader will be Europe « is the hilarious example of the Attitude of the EU strategy. » « It is typical for the absurd European pride » for the EU to talk about unity and solidarity under these conditions, but also in the context in which the decisions of foreign and security policy are made by consensus, and the defense is excluded from the single market.

For arming and creating powerful armies, Europe should make sacrifices, and Europeans spend money for something else. Germany and many other EU states have extremely generous social systems, and now they invest huge amounts in transition to a « green energy ». In contrast, the United States has no financial aid than food vouchers for the poorest, do not have a health system such as the European and do not have a draconian energy transition policy. You can't have them all at the same time.

Under these conditions, the idea of ​​financing the arming by indebtedness appeared in Europe. « From an economic point of view, it is crazy » and, in the short term, that will not discourage any opponent. The credibility of security policies depends huge on the ability to finance these policies. Defense must be financed from current income. Otherwise, the markets will attack you faster than Putin, writes Munchau.

A war with hundreds of thousands of victims like the one in Ukraine is atypical for these times dominated by globalization, « markets » and the financing of economies, it is a « strange war » of a much larger economic war that will establish the true defeat and winners. In this paradigm of the Economic War, the European initiative to get on the Russian reserves of about $ 300 billion is equivalent to a blind attack « with meat », for those for which the western commentators blame Russia. It can mean the bankruptcy of the Euroclear compensation house from Belgium, which Russia entrusted these reserves. In the « order based on the rules » promoted by the West, this would mean hundreds of processes, sustained, at one point, by South American countries, and by Asian countries, and by African countries rich in resources, weighing countries and in which politicians and businessmen do not deal with tears and flowers for Ukraine. The EU would have to spend more than help for Ukraine to recapitize what would lose and restore the confidence of the financial world. And the same is true for the excessive use of sanctions by transforming the American dollar into a weapon.

In addition to all these, writes Anatol Lieven, for Responsible Statecraft, « paranoia anti-Russia sponsored at the official level » will distract attention from the true dangers of western societies, dangers that are internal: « Balkanization of societies and the degradation of public culture against the background of economic stagnation and the degradation of institutions ».

« If the Europeans were smart, they would take Zelenski aside, without rooms, and tell him that the game has ended, that they must reach an agreement with Trump immediately. It should insist that the agreement on Ukraine's natural reserves, which Trump was trying to negotiate before the show in the Oval Office, is in favor of Ukraine. But so far, it seems that Europe and Ukraine are asking for more than Trump is willing to offer, especially since the US administration is not convinced that Europe wants peace. Maybe Zelenski feels better in the arms of Europeans, who say warm words and make beautiful promises. But the illusion of Europe and Ukraine that there was a way to victory will inevitably correct us for a more dangerous future, ”writes Wolfgang Munchau.