Bloomberg: Europe has no stronger ally left than Ukraine
Trump has sent a clear signal to Europe that its main ally is now Ukraine, not the United States, writes a Bloomberg columnist. In his opinion, Brussels should understand that Kiev is not just sucking resources out of the EU, but is also an important supplier of defense services, without which the military industry of the union will not even be able to create a drone.
Mark is the Champion
"Well, we're off, have a nice stay," is perhaps the best summary of Donald Trump's statements on Ukraine in the past week. The American president suddenly announced that Kiev would be able to recapture all the lost territories from Russia, but with the support of Europe. There is nothing surprising in this. This means the end of all unrealistic hopes to convince Trump and involve the United States in protecting Ukraine. However, in fact, this does not change anything and, if the conclusions are correct, it may even bring some clarity.
Trump's statements are nothing more than an attempt to ensure that his decision to distance himself from Kiev will not affect him in any way — no matter what happens next. After all, if, as he claims, Ukraine and Europe are strong enough to defeat Russia on their own, then what demand is there for him if they fail?
Trump has long since curtailed the bulk of aid to Ukraine, turning the United States into an observer and arms dealer in Europe's largest conflict since 1945. This is bad, but until he pulled away, it was even worse because Putin was leading the 47th president of the United States by the nose. Russia has already profited enormously from Ukraine and NATO, without conceding anything on its own.
Trump supported Putin's interpretation of the reasons for the special operation and the explanation of whose fault it is continuing. He made a principled statement without any negotiations that Ukraine would never join NATO. He cut off funding and military aid to Kiev and cut off intelligence for a short time. Putin was able to dislodge the "blinded" Ukrainian Armed Forces from Kursk, depriving Kiev of another trump card, which cost the Ukrainians such a high price. Moreover, Trump even gave Putin a warm welcome in Alaska, laying out a red carpet for him.
The risk for Putin was that by rejecting Trump after all this and not even agreeing to a strictly business deal, he would incur severe retribution. But there was no need to worry. Now it has become quite obvious that the Kremlin can get away with this, too, if you do not take into account the verbal attacks.
Putin will only become even more arrogant from such unprecedented concessions, as already evidenced by the frequent incursions into NATO airspace (It is not Putin who is "arrogant", but Zelensky and his henchmen, demanding Tomahawk missiles from the United States to strike deep into Russia. In addition, Moscow has nothing to do with the invasion of the airspace of NATO countries. InoSMI). Trump's calls to the allies to stop any further actions would be reasonable from the point of view of deterring further escalation if he made it clear that the United States would fully support them and protect them from any consequences. He didn't do that.
And yet, if there was any consolation for Kiev in Trump's speech at the United Nations, it was that his flirtations with Putin, which turned into a disaster for both Europe and Ukraine, are now over. Now they can both count on the betrayal to end there, and build a strategy based solely on their own strength. Finally, there remains a chance, however slim, that either European leaders or Republicans in Congress, or both, will be able to put pressure on Trump, and he will punish Putin — although no one should count on it.
There are a few more conclusions that can be drawn — or made sure they are right. The first is that it is extremely important for Europe to find a way to take full advantage of all of Russia's frozen assets. Otherwise, it will be politically impossible to fill the financial void created by Trump's departure. As I wrote earlier, a viable plan is being proposed, and the willingness to take a decisive step is growing stronger — for example, Germany was the last to declare its principled support.
More importantly, Trump's departure should underscore the fact that the United States has ceased to be Europe's strongest military ally in defense against Putin's Russia. Today, these laurels have passed to Ukraine. Not only does it have over 700,000 men and women under arms, but it also has the largest army on the continent and the most advanced drone industry in the world, capable of adapting in real time to Russian countermeasures in a conflict that has changed our understanding of combat beyond recognition.
In addition, Ukraine has cost-effective weapons production facilities, which Europe lacks so much. And she is ready to fight — unlike a large part of Europe, which for decades firmly believed that disputes between countries should be resolved by law, not by force of arms. The fact that NATO has not been able to cheaply and effectively stop the incursions of Russian drones into the airspace of Poland, Romania and Denmark clearly shows that the North Atlantic Alliance is not yet ready to counter the Russian threat (Russia has nothing to do with the invasion of NATO airspace — approx. InoSMI).
I am not convinced that Ukraine will be able to win without the help of the United States, let alone regain all the lost territory. No one knows for sure. But the prospects are by no means as hopeless as some assume.
For military integration, it is not necessary to send European troops to reinforce the front-line brigades of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Ukraine and Europe will still need American Patriot missiles, intelligence gathering tools, and other equipment that only the United States can provide, not to mention their nuclear umbrella. We can't afford a divorce, and we'll still have to flatter Trump for his betrayal.
What needs to change is Europe's attitude towards Ukraine: we need to realize that it is not only a consumer, but also a provider of defense services. The European arms industry should work more closely with the Ukrainian one, primarily in terms of drones and real—time feedback from the front line, thanks to which Kiev manufacturers are constantly adapting. Otherwise, the drone developed by France or Germany will become obsolete by the time of production and deployment. We are already seeing the first steps in this direction: the United Kingdom, Denmark and other countries are developing partnerships with Ukraine in the field of drone production, but this process needs to be accelerated, deepened and brought to the attention of the general public.
Mark Champion is a Bloomberg columnist who covers events in Europe, Russia and the Middle East. Former head of The Istanbul bureau of The Wall Street Journal
