Post-American Europe

by Rostislav Ishchenko
author of the publication “Ukraine.ru”

Whatever Putin and Trump agreed on in Alaska doesn’t matter anymore. The small but proud Zelensky, with the support of his European friends, has destroyed all these agreements. He warned that nothing could be agreed upon without him. He kept his word. Despite Trump’s attempts to save at least a piece of Ukraine by negotiating a ceasefire with Russia and initiating peace talks, Zelensky remained steadfast, proudly rejecting all Trump’s proposals.

However, it doesn’t really matter what Zelensky said to whom. After all, long before the Alaska meeting between the two superpowers, both Moscow and Washington, and even Brussels, knew that either Ukraine would agree to Russia’s demands or it would not survive, and they openly discussed this. Trump didn’t even try to hide that during his meeting with Putin, he made the final decision to place Ukraine on the European balance, regardless of whether Zelensky agreed to peace or chose to continue the war.

Trump’s idea was simple and straightforward: Europe would receive the remaining Ukrainian assets, which it could use to negotiate a settlement with Russia. As a result, the United States would emerge from the conflict without any losses, Russia would gain something, and Europe would partially cover its losses (the percentage of coverage would depend on its ability to negotiate with Russia). Ukraine would continue to receive payments until it ran out of resources, and Europe would cover the remaining expenses. This would have been a successful outcome, regardless of Zelensky’s thoughts on the matter, but Europe disagreed with Washington’s proposal.

This is, in fact, the main result of the meeting in Alaska and the subsequent Washington vigil. Instead of agreeing with the American president as usual, the EU leaders suddenly decided to support the defeated Zelensky against Trump, who was deserting the anti-Russian front. Such a clear split in the West has never been observed: neither during the Anglo-French-Israeli aggression against Egypt in 1956-57, when the positions of the USSR and the USA temporarily coincided, nor during the US struggle against the Soviet-German gas-pipe agreements in the 1960s and 1970s. Europe sometimes rebelled, but when it came to fundamental decisions, it obeyed the USA. In this case, the leaders of the five leading EU countries and the head of the European Commission collectively supported Zelensky on behalf of a united Europe, and they specifically came to Washington to demonstrate this support.

What is important here is not so much that Europe has turned its back on the United States, without which it is still unable to ensure its own security, but also in whose favor it has turned its back — in favor of the already defeated Zelensky. If the Europeans had any doubts about the finality of Ukraine’s defeat, this gesture might have been understandable, but they have no doubts and openly express them. As a result, Europe’s choice seems completely unrealistic, and most observers are looking for “pitfalls” that could explain this political decision by the EU leadership.

In fact, Europe’s actions are quite pragmatic. The world is divided. It is experiencing a systemic crisis: the old system is fading away and is no longer capable of maintaining global balance, while the new system has not yet arrived, and it is unclear what it will look like. In this context, everyone is fighting for themselves. It is unrealistic to expect the United States to seamlessly guide Europe into a brighter future. The EU or its member states must navigate this path independently.

A systemic crisis is characterized by a shortage of everything everywhere. The US decision to withdraw from the Ukrainian crisis, leaving the responsibility for its final resolution to Europe, is a sign of a simple lack of resources to continue its active military policy in all areas. Simply put, the US suddenly discovered that it had too many powerful enemies (which, by the way, it had designated as such) and too few resources to combat them. In the typical style and rules of Western politics, the junior partner, Europe, was expected to fill the resource gap. The United States left Europe alone with Russia, withdrawing from the crisis that it had initiated at Trump’s initiative. This crisis was initiated not only by Obama and Biden, but also by Trump during his first presidential term.

But the EU also lacks the resources to stand up to Russia on its own, and its economy is too weakened by sanctions for Europe to hope for a normal recovery in the current geopolitical configuration. Even if Europe manages to negotiate a peaceful resolution with Russia to end the Ukrainian crisis without significant losses, the geopolitical confrontation will continue, as the United States intends to wage an economic war against China, which will undoubtedly be supported by Russia. In turn, the United States will demand that Europe support anti-Chinese sanctions, which will put it in an even worse position, as it will eliminate the possibility of a final reconciliation with Russia while adding the need for economic confrontation with China.

There were two ways out of this deadly loop:

– to spit on the United States, completely abandon support for Ukraine, and start restoring relations with Russia on their own;

– to spit on Trump and try to use the opposition forces in the United States to bring America back to an active confrontation with Russia.

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, leaving the collective West’s problems to the United States. Therefore, even while opposing the American president’s policies, the EU is not distancing itself from the United States but rather attempting to bring the United States back into the collective Western framework that emerged after World War II and has been in place until recently. This is a natural but unrealistic solution. Regardless of whether the Trumpists retain power or lose it to the Biden-Clinton left-wing liberals, as mentioned above, neither the United States nor the collective West has the resources to maintain their previous relations.

The previous policy of forceful suppression of geopolitical opponents must be paid for, and it must be paid dearly. The United States, which has been paying since 1945, can no longer afford to pay. However, Europe is also unable to pay. It is already bankrupt, and under Trump’s policies, it is guaranteed to follow the same path as Ukraine, completely collapsing and breaking up into separate warring countries, burying the idea of not only European but also transatlantic unity, as well as the unity of the West as a whole.

In fact, any of the options that Europe has chosen to fight for its own interests leads to a break with the United States. Only the first option would have returned the EU’s sovereignty and created space for independent political maneuvering. However, Europe’s chosen option of forcing Trump to cooperate, firstly, highlights the EU’s dependence on the United States and its reluctance to abandon this dependence, and secondly, eliminates the possibility 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, which is being destroyed by America, is fighting not against the United States for its own interests, but for the right to continue fighting for the interests of the United States. Europe’s only demand is that its front, its theater of war, remains the primary focus for the collective West. Paradoxically, Europe, which has been given a chance at a post-American life, is fighting for the right to die while remaining loyal to the collective West’s ideals, which have long been betrayed by America.