The EU's leadership is now a global threat
Europe's current political landscape must be understood in the context of the dramatic shifts taking place in the United States. The continent's political elites are not striving for strategic autonomy, nor are they preparing for a direct confrontation with its biggest state, Russia. Their primary concern is holding on to power. In pursuit of this goal, history has shown that elites will go to great lengths.
Recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pointed out that, for the past 500 years, Europe has been the epicenter of global conflicts or their instigator. Today, its independent military potential is depleted – both economically and socially. To rebuild, Europe would need years of aggressive militarization, which would impoverish its citizens. Western European leaders seem determined to ensure the latter, but they are not yet ready for the former.
While the EU states may not be preparing for a direct military confrontation with Russia, their entanglement in Ukraine and its reliance on a failing strategy could escalate tensions unpredictably. Many Western European politicians have staked their careers on the survival of the Kiev regime, making them willing to take extreme measures to justify their past decisions. This collective political egoism is now manifesting as an inability to acknowledge mistakes or alter course.
A renowned religious philosopher once wrote that in a collective, the individual mind becomes subservient to the collective interest and loses the ability to act independently. This dynamic is now evident in EU policymaking. The bloc has effectively abandoned its instinct for self-preservation. Ukraine is proof that even large states can adopt self-destructive foreign policies. This poses dangers not just for Europe but for the wider world.
The European Union's bureaucratic dysfunction cannot be ignored. For over 15 years, top EU positions have been assigned based on two criteria: incompetence and corruption. The reason is simple – after the 2009-2013 financial crisis, EU states lost interest in strengthening the bloc. Consequently, Brussels no longer seeks independent-minded politicians with strategic vision. The days of statesmen like Jacques Delors or even Romano Prodi – who at least understood the importance of pragmatic relations with Russia – are long gone.
But incompetence does not preclude ambition. Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas exemplify this – leaders who, finding no avenues for career advancement back home, now seek to carve out their legacy through conflict with Russia. Since they have no real power within the EU, they latch onto the Ukraine crisis to justify their positions.
Much of the rhetoric about European rearmament is little more than posturing. Brussels' calls for militarization are designed to generate media attention rather than produce tangible results. Yet, constant war-mongering can have real consequences. The EU public is being conditioned to accept lower living standards and increased military spending under the guise of countering the 'Russian threat.' The fact that this narrative is gaining traction among ordinary Europeans is a worrying development.
EU leaders are now caught between two conflicting desires: maintaining their comfortable way of life while outsourcing all security responsibilities to the US. They also harbor hopes that by prolonging the Ukraine conflict, they can extract concessions from Washington and reduce dependence on the US. But this idea is primarily entertained by major countries like Germany and France. The EU, as a bloc, lacks any real unity.
The contradiction between unattainable goals fuels the spectacle of incoherent European policymaking. It was initiated last year by Emmanuel Macron's bizarre claims that France was prepared to send troops to Ukraine. Since then, Western European politicians have produced a constant stream of contradictory and absurd statements, each more unrealistic than the last. Policy on the Ukraine crisis has devolved into a cacophony of noise with no practical direction.
The only clear Western European consensus is opposition to any peace initiative that might stabilize Ukraine. More and more EU representatives openly insist that the war must continue indefinitely. At the same time, the leaders of major EU states oscillate between bellicose threats and admissions that they would only escalate under American cover.
Western Europe's political schizophrenia no longer raises eyebrows. For decades, its leaders have operated in a vacuum, unconcerned about how their actions are perceived abroad. Unlike the US, which sometimes acts aggressively to project strength, European politicians exhibit an entirely different pathology – one marked by detachment and indifference. They act like madmen, oblivious to external reactions.
The EU's elites, as well as its populations, understand that escaping American control is impossible. Many secretly wish it were otherwise. However, Donald Trump's new approach to transatlantic relations is likely to be far harsher than anything seen before. Yet, European elites cling to the hope that, within a few years, the Democrats will return to power and restore the status quo.
The bloc's strategy, therefore, is simple: prolong the current situation for as long as possible. This is because European leaders have no idea how to maintain their positions if peace with Russia is restored. Over the past two decades, Western Europe has consistently failed to solve any of its pressing problems. The Ukraine crisis is simply the most dangerous manifestation of this longstanding dysfunction.
EU politicians continue to ask themselves: How can we maneuver without having to take real action? This passive approach to governance is no longer just a problem for Europe – it is actively fueling conflicts and endangering global stability.This article was first published by 'Vzglyad' newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
13 hours ago
- Russia Today
US has ‘no right' to tell India who to trade with
The United States has no right to tell India who it can partner with in trade, Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, said on Friday. The economist was commenting in an interview with NDTV television on Washington's decision to impose additional tariffs on India over its purchases of Russian oil. Last week, the White House announced an extra 25% tariff on Indian imports, raising the overall tariff level faced by the South Asian nation to 50%. US President Donald Trump said the measure was prompted by India's continued imports of Russian oil. New Delhi condemned the move as 'extremely unfortunate' and pledged to safeguard its national interests. Sachs described the tariff increase as a clear reason for India to remain cautious in its dealings with Washington. 'Don't rely on them. India needs a diversified base of partners – Russia, China, ASEAN countries, Africa, and not see itself as mainly focusing on the US market, which is going to be unstable, slow-growing and basically protectionist,' according to Sachs. Addressing India's imports of Russian oil, Sachs stated that Washington has no authority to determine the trading relations of other nations. The US 'does not act responsibly towards other countries. Be careful. India should not allow itself to be used by the US, somehow, in the US' misguided trade war with China,' the economist noted. New Delhi is now seeking to expand its export presence in the 50 countries that account for about 90% of its total exports in an effort to offset the impact of the higher tariffs, according to local media reports, citing government sources. The initiative is intended to reduce reliance on any single market and to minimize risks arising from trade disruptions. In response to the US threats to impose secondary sanctions on Russia's trade partners, including India, China, and Brazil, Moscow stated that it believes 'sovereign states should have, and do have, the right to choose their own trade partners,' as well as to independently determine which avenues of cooperation best serve their national interests.
Russia Today
15 hours ago
- Russia Today
The EU throws an epic tantrum as Trump meets with Putin
The European Union had been wailing about 'transatlantic unity' in the run-up to US President Trump heading to the negotiating table with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday – without it. It sounded like a toddler stomping their feet because Daddy let go of their hand in the mall and now they're lost between Cinnabon and Burger King. A lot of good their dogmatic rhetoric has done them so far. If it wasn't for Brussels getting drunk on its own transatlantic solidarity and unity propaganda, maybe it wouldn't currently be in economic and political dire straits. The kind where you're trying to duct-tape your economy back together with overpriced American gas. They could have charted a different path vis-a-vis Russia. Maybe one that involved spearheading diplomacy rather than marching in lockstep behind the US-led NATO parade of weapons and fighters on Russia's border with Ukraine, which helped supercharge the conflict in the first place. They could have insisted on keeping their cheap Russian energy instead of sanctioning their own imports like they were vying for a Nobel Prize in masochism. Now, the US is daring them to even close their clever little loophole in their own anti-Russian sanctions. The one that lets them moralize about helping Ukraine and the need to avoid negotiations with Russia while guzzling Russian fuel on the down-low. Trump Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told them to 'put up or shut up' and sanction the Indian and Chinese importers of Russian petroleum through which the EU still buys Russian fuel. While the EU indulges itself in rhetorical games, Trump has dropped all pretexts of serving any interests but America's first, and isn't following any agenda beyond trying to wrap things up with Russia in Ukraine and to score some economic wins in the process. Brussels has had more than three years to do the same. Instead, it kept repeating the mantra that Kiev had to win on the battlefield. There were no other options, it said. Whoops! Now that the option has materialized, the Europeans are relegated to running behind Trump, pleading with him to indulge them by letting Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky decide where the post-conflict borders will be. What did they think the downside of their 'win by force' gamble would be, if not changed borders? The EU insists on Ukraine fighting Russia with EU cash and weapons, and when Kiev loses, they say, 'Ok, well this sucks – how about if everyone just pretends that none of this happened and we dial all the territorial gains and losses back to a point of our choosing, okay?' The EU insisted on waiting for someone else to take the initiative for peace. Now all it can do is pick up its pom-poms and cheer Trump on. Then hope that he rewards it. As Zelensky's self-appointed babysitters, instead of spending the past week in the run-up to the Alaska summit insisting that Putin and Trump allow a high chair booster seat and a pack of crayons at the negotiating table so he can show them where he wants the borders, maybe the Europeans should have been calming him down and managing expectations. He sounded like he was treating his phone like a toy, calling up everyone in the contacts under 'EU' – Estonia, Denmark, probably a few pizza places… The EU has tried to gaslight Trump with the same rhetoric that it constantly firehoses onto European citizens about peace in Ukraine being a dangerous gateway drug for Russia to invade Western Europe – a convenient marketing pitch to justify boosting the weapons industry to the detriment of domestic priorities. Not even warhawk US Senator Lindsey Graham is saying that now, telling NBC News that 'Russia is not going to Kiev'...let alone the EU. European leaders treated Wednesday's video call with Trump like a win. Perhaps because he didn't explicitly tell them off, for once. But they really have no idea what he'll actually discuss with Putin, nor do they have leverage over any eventual US–Russia deal. They don't know whether Trump is just placating them because he doesn't need a bunch of hysterical circus clowns in the mix. So how could the EU spin this to avoid looking completely irrelevant? 'Today Europe, the US and NATO have strengthened the common ground for Ukraine, we will remain in close coordination. Nobody wants peace more than us. A just and lasting peace,' said unelected EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Yeah, sounds desperate for peace, alright. Which must be why the EU is building weapons factories at breakneck speed, according to the Financial Times. Nothing says 'we're committed to ending the war' like tripling down on weapons. What are you going to do with all those if peace breaks out? Toss them in the landfill and hope that taxpayers forget about the boondoggle, like you did with the hundreds of millions of unused Covid jabs? Brussels talks like a co-architect of global policy, but in practice it's more like a subcontractor who has to implement someone else's blueprint. The Alaska summit exclusion exposes how little agency it actually has in resolving conflicts that it has been funding and fueling. So much for a 'feminist' foreign policy. The EU is behaving like a geopolitical tradwife. Whatever happens between Trump and Putin, the EU has already vowed to adopt Ukraine's problems while crossing its fingers that Trump might pitch in with 'assistance' – military or otherwise. Why would Trump want a piece of that when Brussels has already welcomed it being dumped on its lap? Why settle for normalization with Russia, business, trade, and peace when you can have endless soap opera reruns instead?
Russia Today
20 hours ago
- Russia Today
Fyodor Lukyanov: Putin-Trump meeting seeks to settle unfinished Cold War business
It has been a long time since a diplomatic event drew as much global attention as Friday's meeting between the Russian and US presidents in Alaska. In terms of its significance for the international balance, it is comparable only to the negotiations on German reunification 35 years ago. That process laid the foundations for political developments in the decades that followed. The Alaska talks could prove a similar milestone – not just for the Ukraine conflict, but for the principles on which a broader settlement between the world's leading powers might be reached. Ukraine has become the most visible arena for historical shifts that go far beyond its borders. But if the German analogy holds, no one should expect a breakthrough from a single meeting. The marathon of high-level diplomacy in 1990 lasted many months, and the mood then was far less acute and far more optimistic than today. The dense fog of leaks and speculation surrounding Alaska underlines its importance. Much of this 'white noise' comes from two sources: commentators eager to sound informed, and political actors seeking to shape public opinion. In reality, the substantive preparation for the talks appears to have little to do with the propaganda framing. This is why official announcements so often catch outside observers by surprise. That may be a good sign. In recent decades, especially in Europe, diplomacy has often been accompanied by a steady drip of confidential details to the press – a habit that may serve tactical purposes but rarely produces lasting results. In this case, it is better to wait for the outcome, or the lack of one, without giving in to the temptation to guess what will happen behind closed doors. There is also a broader backdrop that cannot be ignored: the shifts in the global order catalyzed by the Ukraine crisis, though not caused by it. For years, I have been skeptical of claims that the world is dividing neatly into two opposing camps – 'the West' versus 'the rest.' Economic interdependence remains too deep for even sharp political and military conflicts to sever ties entirely. Yet contradictions between these blocs are growing, and they are increasingly material rather than ideological. A key trigger was US President Donald Trump's recent attempt to pressure the largest states of the so-called 'global majority' – China, India, Brazil, and South Africa – to fall in line with Washington's instructions. The old liberal order promised universality and some benefits to participants. Now, purely American mercantile interests dominate. As before, Washington dresses its demands in political justifications – criticizing Brazil and South Africa over their treatment of the opposition, or attacking India and China over their ties with Moscow. But the inconsistencies are obvious. Trump, unlike his predecessors, prefers tariffs to sanctions. Tariffs are an explicitly economic tool, but they are now being wielded for political ends. The attempt has failed to produce the outcome the White House wanted. The US president is used to allies compromising to preserve their relationship with Washington. BRICS countries, too, have often avoided confrontation for the sake of their own economic interests. But the bluntness of the American push this time forced them to stiffen their positions. Ukraine, in itself, has little to do with this shift – but it is the issue commanding global political attention. Ahead of the Alaska summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been personally briefing BRICS and other key partners on the preparations. They are taking note, and in many cases expressing support for the process. Across the Atlantic, consultations are equally intense, though marked by unease and limited trust. Western Europe's anxiety that Trump might 'cut a deal' with Putin is telling. The world is still dividing into groups, but while one group is moving towards greater coordination, the other is growing less cohesive. Even if Alaska produces serious discussions, there is no guarantee it will deliver peace. It may not even be the final meeting. What is troubling is that the public debate remains focused on territorial carve-ups – who gets what, and what is given in exchange. This misses the core issue. The acute phase of the Ukraine crisis was not triggered by a hunger for territorial expansion. It began when Moscow challenged the security order that emerged after the Cold War – an order built on the open-ended enlargement of NATO as the supposed guarantor of European stability. This is where the German reunification analogy returns. That plan, while it resolved a territorial question, also enshrined the political principles that shaped the post-Cold War system. Those same principles, and the imbalance they created between Moscow and Washington, lay at the root of the 2022 escalation. Borders and territories are only part of the picture. The real question is the basis for peaceful coexistence going forward. In 1990, a settlement between East and West created the architecture of European security. But the way the Cold War ended – and the failure to give Moscow an equal stake – planted the seeds of today's confrontation. In that sense, the Alaska meeting is an attempt to resolve unfinished business from the past. Without a final settlement of this historic imbalance, it will be impossible to create a stable new system of relations, not just between Russia and the West but globally. The frequency of Putin's meetings with BRICS leaders shows that Moscow understands this reality. Whether Washington does remains to be article was first published in the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team
