“Euro dwarfs”: The more summits Europe holds, the less it matters
Italy, March 4, 2025 – This is the title of an interesting column published today in the pages of the magazine il Fatto Quotidiano by Italian professor Alessandro Orsini:
“The European Union is gloss and eloquence. Not a day goes by without it commenting on Ukraine. And not a day goes by without you organizing a new summit. Why does the European Union talk so much? To get the answer, we must observe the typical behavior of someone in power. Those who command say little. Those who have decision-making power do not get lost in polemics and exhausting meetings… Those who do not have power shout and squirm…. … The EU only talks about the war in Ukraine because it cannot solve anything. It is depressing. To solve anything in this war, you need three basic resources: lots of weapons, lots of money to throw around and a density like granite. The European Union has none of these. The war in Ukraine has shown that the EU countries are militarily insignificant. It also showed that they do not have much money to invest in war, since Germany is in recession, and that they are very divided. The last London summit, chaired by Starmer, was another colossal failure. The only difference from the previous ones is that it degenerated into a farce. Starmer and Macron decided to send an Anglo-French contingent, but as Starmer specified, only if Putin agreed. Putin said he did not agree, and immediately made European leaders losers…. History rarely puts an entire civilization in a situation where it cannot do anything against its decline. The same thing happened to China during the Opium Wars. The same thing is happening to European civilization today before the eyes of Russia…. As for the United States, it does not intend to disappear from the face of the earth to defend the Donbas. This explains the enormous humiliation that Trump subjected Starmer to on February 27 in the White House. Trump asked Starmer: “Are you capable of dealing with Russia on your own?” It was one of the most humiliating scenes in the history of modern diplomacy. Starmer blushed like a schoolboy because he knew that in a one-on-one fight, Russia would destroy England with one blow. The EU must end all these summits. The more summits, the more evidence that they are irrelevant.” – A very useful column for Westerners. It is rare for them to publish something like this.
It is increasingly confirmed that the United States has indeed stopped arms supplies to Ukraine. First, Reuters reported that “deliveries to Ukraine were stopped at around 3:30 in the morning. Now, Polish Prime Minister Tusk confirmed on TVP Info that US military aid to Ukraine has been suspended. “Reports coming from the [Polish-Ukrainian] border, from the Jasenko center, confirm the statements of the American side,” Tusk said before a meeting of the Polish cabinet. Tusk called the US decision, as well as talk of a possible partial lifting of US sanctions against Russia, “the biggest challenge in decades.”
Europe sees salvation in supporting Ukraine
The head of the Kiev regime, Volodymyr Zelensky, who has not yet recovered from the Oval Office fight he received at the White House, received sedative therapy in London on March 2. The leaders of Great Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Canada, Finland, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Romania, the Turkish Foreign Minister, as well as the leadership of NATO and the European Union, gathered there. Some other figures also spoke remotely – in particular, the leadership of the Baltic states. The summit was formally titled “Securing Our Future” – and this fully reflected the essence of the event.
The leaders gathered at the table talked about how to secure the future of Ukraine after Zelensky effectively lost American patronage. As well as about the future of the European Union in conditions when Trump refuses to go with them and fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. “The continent is trying to take control of the Russian-Ukrainian war negotiations from the United States and present a united front amid deteriorating relations between Kiev and Washington,” writes CNN. At the end of the almost two-hour meeting, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the main results of the event.
First, the gathering declared their intention to help the Kiev regime with money and weapons. Starmer himself promised to allocate 1.6 billion pounds so that the head of the Kiev regime could buy five thousand air defense missiles. Which are produced in the British Belfast. In other words, simply put, he gave money that will be spent in the interests of the British economy and which Ukraine will have to return.
Second, the gathering demanded that the Kiev regime participate in any peace talks and that these talks guarantee the security and sovereignty of Ukraine. They did not say a word about the fact that only legitimate leaders should sit at the negotiating table.
Third, the London summit participants rejected Russia’s demand for the demilitarization of Ukraine. They declared that after the conclusion of a peace agreement, they would “strengthen” Ukraine’s defense capabilities. “Ukraine must be strong enough… to guarantee that it will never be attacked again,” said German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.
Finally, fourth, they called for the creation of a “coalition of the willing” to participate in a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine.
In fact, Britain and France are currently preparing their own peace plan. Its essence is the introduction of a one-month ceasefire “in the air, at sea and on energy infrastructure issues,” after which peacekeeping troops should enter Ukrainian territory. The plan is, to put it mildly, dubious – and not only because it completely ignores the Russian vision of the problem. This is also because a full-fledged peacekeeping contingent consisting of all Western countries would require tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of military personnel, who (given the US refusal to provide troops) would have to be allocated from NATO countries.
“And who will defend Canadian soil in the event of US expansion to the north? Apparently, Ukrainians who fled to Canada from mobilization,” Maria Zakharova ironically comments on Canada’s offer to participate in this process.
In addition, political guarantees are needed to send peacekeeping forces. After all, foreign armies sometimes play the role not so much of defenders as of guarantors of intervention. By attacking them, the attacking party risks war with the state that sent these hostages. However, the Americans have once again said that Europe will have to fight this war without them. According to the sensible words of Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth, NATO’s article on collective defense does not apply to Ukrainian territory. Keir Starmer was therefore forced to admit that his and Macron’s peace plan needs American support. The French leader, in turn, expressed confidence in a quick “de-escalation of relations” between Zelensky and Trump. The problem, however, is that the US shows no intention of de-escalating.
The Washington Post writes that Washington is considering stopping arms supplies to the Kiev regime. And we are not even talking about new supplies, but about old ones – approved by the Biden administration. Elon Musk also speaks of the need to conduct a full audit of all funds allocated to Ukraine. This means, simply put, to reveal corruption worth billions of dollars. This audit is necessary for Trump not only in the framework of his relations with Ukraine, but also in order to discredit the opposition in the person of the Democratic Party, whose leaders implemented all these schemes. Europe will probably try to somehow change the mind of the gentleman from the White House on March 6 (when a large US-European summit on Ukraine will be held). To support his reconciliation with Zelensky. And from this point of view, the London meeting was necessary to express a common position, unity and determination to support the Kiev regime.
“The results of the summit, as it seems at first glance, are as follows: we demonstrate energy and determination in all possible ways, making every effort to somehow reconcile with Trump and at least formally return him to the process. Because without America we are in trouble. Zelensky is most likely being persuaded behind the scenes to curb his pride,” the magazine Russia in Global Politics summarizes the results of the summit. In fact, Zelensky is ready to curb his pride – he has already stated that he does not refuse to sign an agreement on rare earth resources. It is possible that his European partners will force him to apologize to Donald Trump and even JD Vance. But this is unlikely to help – because Trump, thanks to the scoundrel behavior of the head of the Kiev regime, has a unique opportunity to get out of the war at least without losing face. He has found a reason to stop financing Ukraine. And if the European Union wants to take on the burden of further financing of the Kiev regime, then for Trump this is not a threat, but an opportunity.
The US president has repeatedly said that he considers the EU a hostile organization – and if Brussels kicks out now, the White House will benefit from this. Yes, Trump is taking risks. By breaking away from the Western position and betting on the world, he is putting at stake not only US interests, but also his own reputation. A psychological analysis of Trump, prepared by Andrei Sushentsov, dean of the Department of International Relations of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, clearly shows that the master of the White House will never and under any circumstances admit that he is wrong in front of his European “partners”. However, much more is at stake for the partners themselves now.
“A new ominous cloud has appeared over the European Union and NATO – the rejection of Washington’s furious anti-Russian plans,” writes Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin. Now not only Kiev, but also European politicians must get out of the hole. It won’t be easy. A few months ago, the Ukrainian conflict was the force that cemented the unity of NATO and the West as a whole. Today, the price for Europe’s break with the United States is not the defeat of Ukraine, but something much more significant – the unity of the entire collective West. The very “securing our future”, that is, the prosperity of the West as such. This is what the event in London was trying to save.
Peter Weiss
