Russia-Ukraine war: How Europe is in denial about Trump's U-turn on Zelensky
Last week in Washington, the US and Ukrainian presidents engaged in an amusing exercise of diplomatic amateurism. The usual photo-op of a political summit turned into an unprecedented public bust-up among erstwhile allies.
It went reasonably well at first, but swiftly descended into an embarrassing squabble where cognitive dissonance, recriminations, egos and old grievances played their respective parts in what was effectively a tragicomedy.
The verbal sparring match inside the Oval Office between President Donald Trump, his deputy J D Vance, and an unprepared, uncertain and ultimately clumsy Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky sent shockwaves around the world, and across the US, as evidenced by the gloomy face of Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The flareup was a perfect representation of the famous motto attributed to former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger: “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”
Rumours will swirl for weeks and months about what happened. Zelensky might have been deliberately ambushed, or perhaps he relied too heavily on France and Britain, whose leaders visited the White House just before him in an effort to pave the way for a ceasefire deal to end the Russia-Ukraine war.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
But the egocentric Trump, determined to find accommodation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, was animated by these intentions. Zelensky, on the other hand, presented a long list of grievances against Putin, and did not appear receptive to the notion of a quick ceasefire deal at any cost.
Zelensky deserves an award for managing to be the bravest and stupidest leader at the same time
The Ukrainian leader might have decided, out of desperation, to play all the cards he had against the Trump administration - because at home, he has a gun pointed to his head by the far right, who are determined to fight Russia until the last Ukrainian. Time will tell.
Meanwhile, Zelensky’s letter addressed to the US president after this spectacular spat seems like a desperate attempt at damage control.
The net unfortunate result was that Trump, in just 10 minutes, killed Zelensky’s hopes and dreams, as well as those cultivated by Ukraine’s European allies.
European irrelevance
Zelensky deserves an award for managing to be the bravest and stupidest leader at the same time. His follow-up interview with Fox News, and the statement he issued from London the next day, did nothing to improve his standing with the US administration. For the time being, he seems to be persona non grata in Washington, with Trump suspending military aid to Ukraine as proof that this is not just a war of words.
Ukraine could thus be destined to enter the pantheon of those made orphans by the US across the 20th and 21st centuries, from South Vietnam in 1975, to Iran in 1979, to Lebanon in 1984, to Panama in 1989, to Afghanistan in 2021.
How European leaders will confront this shocking turn of events might unfortunately be irrelevant. They were unable to anticipate Trump’s vision, preferring instead to continue watching the Truman Show with which they have entertained themselves for the last three years.
The notion that they could now replace the US in supporting Ukraine against Russia is laughable. They will never be able to fill the huge gap created by their decades-long laziness in military procurement, nor would they be able to find the financial resources, as their budgets have shrunk to the point of bringing Europe to the brink of social revolt. Trump’s decision to suspend weapons delivery to Ukraine is making the situation even harder.
If this is truly a “Sputnik moment” for Nato and the EU, then great and inspired leaderships would be needed to effectively react. Europe seems incapable of offering one.
For the last three years, EU leaders have outsourced their analytical skills to the Biden administration (which fixated on the flawed democracy-versus-autocracy narrative), and they are well aware of the risk posed to Russia by Nato’s eastward expansion. These leaders are now all issuing the same statements in support of Zelensky, but without meaningful collective action, it is an empty process.
Cognitive dissonance
The feeble statement issued after the hastily convened Euro-Atlantic summit in London on Sunday affirmed leaders’ determination “to work for a permanent peace in Ukraine, in partnership with the United States”. So as the US pulls away from Europe, they have concluded that Europe must continue working closely with the US. When it comes to cognitive dissonance, Europe remains second to none.
The statement continues: “We must not repeat the mistakes of the past when weak deals allowed President Putin to invade again.” If the reference here is to the Minsk agreements, it is worth remembering what the former leaders of Germany and France confessed about the spirit with which their countries worked to ensure the success of those deals.
Then, the statement puzzlingly adds: “We have agreed that the UK, France and others will work with Ukraine on a plan to stop the fighting which we will discuss further with the US and take forward together.”
How can the EU pretend to engage the US when its foreign policy chief is ignored by her American counterpart?
In other words, the great result of the London summit was a “plan to stop the fighting” - not a peace proposal - that is supposed to be presented to, and negotiated with, the US, rather than Russia.
It is incredible how much the world has changed since Trump’s inauguration on 20 January.
The cherry on the cake was the statement’s vow to “bring President Putin to the table” by putting “further pressure on Russia by increasing sanctions, including on Russia’s energy revenues, while tightening enforcement of existing measures”.
These people are beyond help. They still believe that by persevering with the last three years of failed policies, they will achieve different results, bringing to mind Albert Einstein’s famous definition of insanity: “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.
A smarter move - one that would send the right signal - would be to oust the EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, who continues to rant against Russia and China. Unsurprisingly, during a recent trip to Washington, Kallas had a meeting cancelled with Rubio, a notorious Russia and China hawk himself. How can the EU pretend to engage the US when its foreign policy chief is ignored by her American counterpart?
The London summit’s participants increasingly resemble the European monarchs of the summer of 1914, sleepwalking towards a cliff. Will the Special European Council scheduled on Thursday provide a more realistic approach? Unlikely.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Middle East Eye delivers independent and unrivalled coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. To learn more about republishing this content and the associated fees, please fill out this form. More about MEE can be found here.
