Europe isn’t planning for peace It will pay the price for this tug-of-war

In a surprising reversal from the Oval Office standoff between Zelensky and Trump and the suspension of US military aid to Ukraine, Kyiv, late on Tuesday, announced its willingness to implement an immediate 30-day ceasefire — provided Moscow agrees to reciprocate. This followed initial talks between US and Ukrainian representatives in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, prompting Washington to swiftly resume military assistance to Ukraine. “The ball is now in Russia’s court,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated — a sentiment echoed by several European leaders.

This marks a significant shift in the US approach to ending the conflict. Previously, Washington sought to pressure Ukraine into accepting a US- and Russia-brokered deal largely on Moscow’s terms. Now, America is attempting to strong-arm Russia into accepting a ceasefire as the first step toward a broader peace plan — warning that if Moscow refuses, “we’ll unfortunately know what the impediment is to peace here,” as Rubio put it.

Whether Russia will agree remains uncertain. Moscow has repeatedly stated that it does not view a ceasefire as viable without a broader framework for negotiations. But the parties are far from agreeing on this broader framework. Russia’s demands are clear: above all, legal recognition by Ukraine and the West of Russia’s annexed territories as part of the Russian Federation.

Yet, just days ago, Zelensky reiterated his opposition to any territorial concession, while all European leaders (except Orbán) outlined a “peace strategy” that involved boosting Ukraine’s military capabilities (including through the delivery of air defence systems, ammunition and missiles) in order to improve its position at the negotiating table and achieve a deal that “respects Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity”. In other words, no territorial concessions. This would be followed by strong security guarantees in the form of European (ie, Nato) troops on the ground — a demand echoed by Zelensky but firmly rejected by Russia.

It’s difficult to see why Moscow would accept a ceasefire under these conditions — especially as it continues to make gains on the battlefield. But that may be precisely the point from the perspective of Zelensky and European leaders: to “put the ball in Russia’s court”, anticipating that Moscow will reject the offer — thus allowing them to portray Russia as uninterested in peace. If so, it would mean that Trump has been cornered by the pro-war party.

Indeed, ever since Trump began negotiations with Putin to end the proxy war in Ukraine, European leaders have been doing everything in their power to derail his peace efforts, hijack the negotiations and prolong the conflict. After all, their insistence on a “just and lasting peace”, and their emphasis on Ukraine’s “territorial integrity”, is, in effect, a recipe for continuing the war under the guise of “peace through strength” — the same failed strategy that has landed Ukraine in this mess in the first place. Meanwhile, the Europeans have unveiled a sweeping rearmament plan, aimed at deterring Russia’s alleged expansionist ambitions — if not actually preparing for a war with Russia.

This is not the behaviour of those genuinely seeking peace. The same can be said for Zelensky’s insistence on territorial integrity and European peacekeepers — both non-starters for Russia. Adding to the contradictions, just hours before the US-Ukraine meeting in Jeddah, Ukraine launched its largest drone strike yet on the Moscow region, killing at least three people — an unusual way to enter peace talks.

At this stage, the most probable outcome is therefore a continuation of the war — at least in the short term. This would be the worst possible way forward for Ukraine: the longer the war continues, the worse Ukraine’s position will become. However, from Zelensky’s standpoint, it makes sense. If the war were to end, his political career would likely be over — and, in a more extreme sense, his very life could be at risk. In other words, Ukraine’s interests aren’t necessarily the same as Zelensky’s.

The same goes for Europe. From the perspective of Europe’s core interests, it is entirely irrational. Far from protecting Europe, the continent’s military build-up could very well create the very danger it purportedly seeks to avoid. Russia has neither the means nor the intent to invade Europe, yet the continuation of the proxy war, and Europe’s rearmament plans, only increase the risk of escalation. This is the exact dynamic that we saw play out in the case of Nato’s eastward expansion, and then in Ukraine.

Yet for the current European leadership, admitting defeat in Ukraine would be a massive political blow — especially given the steep economic toll borne by ordinary Europeans. The war has arguably become the sole source of purpose for EU leaders; without it, their failures would become painfully obvious. Meanwhile, the massive increase in defence spending, and the escalation of tensions, will further empower military-industrial lobbies and solidify the elites’ grip over European society by undermining welfare states and continuing their stifling of democracy under the guise of “fighting Russian interference” — as we are seeing in Romania.

Escalating tensions with Russia also offers a chance to further centralise power within the supranational arm of the EU — the European Commission. As Politico reported: “National capitals fear European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will exploit this crisis to extend Brussels’ powers to new areas and strengthen her influence vis-à-vis national governments.”

Yet it would be a mistake to view the current transatlantic rift solely through the lens of the diverging interests of the European and American leaderships. Beyond these differences, there may be deeper dynamics at play: a coordination between Europe, the Democratic establishment and the liberal-globalist faction of the US permanent state — the web of entrenched interests spanning American bureaucracy, security state and military-industrial complex. These networks all have a shared interest in derailing peace talks and disrupting Trump’s presidency.

The US has, of course, a long history of political influence in Europe. Over the decades, it has built strong institutional ties with the state apparatuses of Western European countries, particularly among their defence and intelligence services. Additionally, the US establishment exercises considerable influence over European public discourse through mainstream English-language media outlets and think tanks. These organisations, such as the German Marshall Fund, the National Endowment for Democracy, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Atlantic Council, help shape the political narratives that dominate European society — and indeed today are at the forefront of pushing the idea that “no agreement is better than a bad one”.

Its origins lie in the Cold War, with the US actively promoting European integration as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. In other words, the EU, especially through its earlier iterations, has always been wedded to Atlanticism, and this has only intensified post-1991. This is why the EU’s technocratic establishment — specifically the European Commission — has historically been more aligned with America than European national governments. Ursula von der Leyen, dubbed “Europe’s American president”, is a prime example of this alignment, working tirelessly to maintain the EU’s commitment to America’s hawkish geopolitical strategy, particularly regarding Russia and Ukraine.

A key tool in this alliance has always been Nato, which today plays a key role in countering Trump’s efforts to shift the US approach towards Russia. In this context, Europe’s stance, though ostensibly aimed at Trump, stems from the recognition that elements within the US ruling class strongly oppose Trump’s overtures to Putin, harbour deep animosity toward Russia, and view the President’s threats to disengage from Nato and undermine other pillars of the post-war order as a strategic challenge to the systems that have upheld American hegemony for decades.

In other words, what on the surface appears to be a clash between Europe and the US may actually be, in a more fundamental sense, a struggle between different factions of the US empire — and, to a large degree, within the US establishment itself — waged through European proxies. After all, many of today’s European leaders have strong connections to these networks.

This could explain the “irrational” policies of those leaders, at least from the perspective of Europe’s objective interests — first, their blind support of the US-led proxy war in Ukraine, and now their insistence on continuing the war at all costs. According to this telling, the objectives of the transatlantic establishment appear quite clear: to demonise Trump, portraying him as a “Putin appeaser”; and to stoke European anxieties over their military vulnerability, including by inflating the Russian threat, in order to push the public into accepting increased defence spending and the continuation of the war for as long as possible.

Neither side in this transatlantic civil war truly has Europe’s interests at heart. The Trumpian faction deems Europe as an economic rival, with Trump himself repeatedly criticising the EU, calling it an “atrocity” designed to “screw” America. Just last week, he announced plans to impose 25% tariffs on European goods “very soon”. On the other hand, the liberal-globalist faction views Europe as a critical front in the proxy war against Russia.

In this context, a scenario in which Europeans prolong the war in Ukraine — at least in the short term — could be seen as a compromise between the two factions. The US can extricate itself from the Ukrainian quagmire while pursuing rapprochement with Russia and shifting its focus to China and Asia-Pacific, all while placing the blame for the failure to achieve peace squarely on Zelensky and the Europeans.

Meanwhile, Europe’s continued involvement in the war ensures its ongoing economic and geopolitical separation from Russia, and reinforces its continued economic dependence on the US — especially in the context of its defence spending hike, much of which would flow to the US military-industrial complex. At the same time, the European representatives of the liberal-globalist establishment would continue to use the Russian threat to entrench their power. Overall, this arrangement could be seen as acceptable by both sides.

In other words, as the geopolitical researcher Brian Berletic has suggested, what is often presented in the media as an unprecedented “transatlantic rift” may, in fact, be more of a “division of labour” in which the Europeans maintain the pressure on Russia while the US turns its attention to China. What’s worse, the scenario wouldn’t change that much even if some kind of peace deal were eventually worked out. Europe would bear both the cost and the responsibility for post-war security arrangements, while remaining locked in a new Cold War with Russia — all while the United States secures its control over Ukraine’s resources.

The long-term effects of this strategy would leave Europe in a perpetual state of instability, its resources drained by ongoing defence spending and its political autonomy further undermined. The true losers in this arrangement would be the people of Europe — and, of course, Ukraine — who will continue to bear the burden of this geopolitical tug-of-war.

---

Thomas Fazi is an UnHerd columnist and translator. His latest book is The Covid Consensus, co-authored with Toby Green.

battleforeurope