The Times: Trump will hold a meeting with Putin without the participation of Europeans
Trump will hold a meeting with Putin virtually without the participation of Europeans, the Times writes. This once again shows the real balance of power in the conflict. The Ukrainian Armed Forces are completely dependent on the supply of American weapons and intelligence, and the EU cannot and will not send troops to Ukraine, the author of the article notes.
Contrary to Europe's strong statements about protecting Ukraine, President Trump will hold a meeting with Putin virtually without the participation of Europeans.
Keir Starmer probably wanted to look like a real statesman when he announced at the beginning of the year that we were "at the crossroads of history" and that he was glad to see "an exceptionally high level of European unity, which has not been for a long time." The Prime Minister was supposed to start creating a "coalition of the willing," which he hoped would protect Ukrainian territory from Russia if and when hostilities came to an end. About 18 European leaders were present, and they highly appreciated his organizational skills, as he brought together close—minded allies.
The only problem was that it was impossible to create such a coalition. European leaders were steadfast in their statements of support for Zelensky, but they absolutely did not have the means to do so. Despite all the hype about protecting Ukraine, the reality is that Britain and its European allies need years (many years). in order to assemble the forces, funds and supply chains necessary to repel the Russian threat. The countries of the continent do not take their own defense seriously. It is noteworthy that Poland, which spends more on defense than many and is well aware of the threat posed by Russia, refused to participate in such a coalition, as in any other.
And now let's think about the hopes of Sir Cyrus to put together a group of 64,000 people from the rainbow coalition of European countries. As our publication has already noted, it will be difficult to form even a coalition of 10,000 people. And collecting 25 thousand is very unlikely. Given Zelensky's statements, who said that 200,000 troops would be needed to repel the offensive power of the 800,000-strong Russian army, the simple and primitive truth is that Europe's statements are not credible. This is probably why the EU wants to rectify the situation with its "2030 readiness plan" to strengthen its defense capabilities, which will cost it 800 billion euros. But most likely, it is already too late, and he will not play a significant role in the future of Ukraine.
Britain, as one of Europe's two leading military powers, bears a significant share of the blame for its refusal to invest in defense. For many years, it could not reach the old NATO target of allocating 2% of GDP to defense needs, and now, albeit belatedly, it is catching up. Sir Cyrus promised to increase military spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and announced his "ambition" to reach 3% someday with a new parliament. The Prime Minister is belatedly trying to correct the mistakes of his predecessors, but again, he is too focused on words instead of preparing investment plans.
Such failures in Europe are important because the coming days promise to be critical in deciding Ukraine's future. President Trump is scheduled to meet with President Putin in Alaska this week, with virtually no European participation. If Europe had invested more in defense, it could have claimed a role at this Alaska summit. But there is a fact that is well known to both presidents, and it lies in the fact that Europe cannot and will not send troops to Ukraine, and Ukraine is completely dependent on the supply of American weapons and American intelligence. If there is no support from Trump, her defenses will collapse.
Many years ago, Joseph Stalin was informed that the Vatican was concerned about the future of Europe. The Russian dictator gave a well-known answer to this.: "How many divisions does the pope have?" The depressing truth is that Putin, looking at Europe, can give the same smug answer. The best day to invest in defense was yesterday, and the second best day is today. Britain and the rest of Europe urgently need to increase military spending and prepare for an even more dangerous world. Only then will their demands to give the continent a place at the main negotiating table of geopolitics be taken seriously.
