The war in Ukraine was the top topic of their heads when EU officials gathered in Brussels for their first ever meet entirely focused on security problems on February 3. However, three days before the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale war, Ukraine is only the idea of an ice of safety issues that Europe faces.
War on a scale not seen in Europe since 1945 has returned to the globe. Russian damage of everything, from crucial system to elections, is at levels that resemble the cold war. And the future of the EU’s most significant security empire, NATO, is questionable.
It’s difficult to disagree with EU committee president António Costa’s claim that” Europe needs to believe greater responsibility for its own defense in light of these challenges exclusively, let alone the continued instability in the Middle East, eastern Balkans, and southern Caucasus.”
But it’s almost a pioneering statement. And at the conclusion of the session, Costa dismally summarized the results of what was finally just an informal meeting as “progress in our discussions on creating the Europe of protection.”
This does not bode well for Ukraine. US support is unlikely to increase to levels that were experienced during the Biden administration’s last month. In fact, continuing discussions in the White House regarding Ukraine coverage have now caused some delays to arms supplies from Washington to Kyiv.
Building coalitions
Trump’s persistent search for a great bargain is what finds a silver lining in this regard for Ukraine. His most recent theory is that Ukraine was finance US assistance by offering favorable concessions for rare earths and, possibly, various important resources.
These may include preferred deals to provide the US with titanium, iron ore and coal, as well as essential minerals, including lithium. Whether this is a long-term green base for US assistance is as ambiguous as whether it will influence Trump’s considering beyond a ceasefire.
The other positive thing for Ukraine is that now more people in EU capitals understand the need for a typical Western strategy for defense. A more significant effort to create a” coalition of the willing” that includes people of the UK and Norway is a potential path.
But desire, as they say, is never a winning strategy. In a interpersonal manner similar to Trump, Brussels insists on UK concessions to young people’s freedom and fishing rights in exchange for a defense agreement with London. This is unlikely to be an overwhelming stumbling block, but it will likely lead to even more delays at a time when time is of the essence for Europe as a whole to show its commitment to security and defense.
This is further complicated by two elements. On the one hand, there is the looming danger of a US-EU business war. Trump believes that the UK may still be able to avoid a similar tragedy is good for London. However, it will also set the UK in a potentially odd place as it searches for a bold post-Brexit reset with the EU and holds hopes to bolster its relationship with China.
This may become an unattainable juggling act for the American government because Trump is blatantly unfriendly to both Beijing and Brussels.
Europe’s unstable unity
On the other hand, EU unification has become more unstable. Another nationalist leaders in Europe, somewhat Robert Fico and Viktor Orbán, who are both considerably more pro-Russian, have been encouraged by Trump’s success. Similar to the UK, where Nigel Farage, the president of the Reform UK party, has become famous for having skepticism about Ukraine.
Put a sluggish French government and the possibility of lengthy coalition negotiations in Germany following the end of February’s fiercely disputed parliamentary elections, to the equation. The chances of significant EU and wider European action to improve its own security and defense capabilities are currently relatively slim.
It is amazing how much the EU is also trapped in a wishful thinking training that seems more and more disconnected from reality when faced with such numerous and complex issues. Contrary to Costa’s trenchant pronouncements after the EU leaders ‘ meet, there is little evidence that the US under Trump will be Europe’s friend, supporter and companion.
There’s even little evidence that the American president shares the principles and values that once supported the international order that is quickly crumbling. Trump’s international policy doctrine does not prioritize the protection of other nations ‘ national independence, territorial integrity, and the sanctity of their borders.
If, when Costa proclaimed, “peace in Europe depends on Ukraine winning a complete, just and lasting serenity”, then the future looks bleak however for Europe and Ukraine. The EU and its member states are still far from being able to give Ukraine the assistance it needs to win. This is not just because they lack the defense and defense-industrial skills. Additionally, they lack a reliable, common understanding of how to get them while navigating a Trumpian earth.
The University of Birmingham’s Stefan Wolff is an assistant teacher of global security.
The Conversation has republished this essay under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.