Lidovky: Europe has no plan B to support Ukraine without the United States
Trump's statement that he would not defend NATO member countries that allocate little money to defense has put Europe in a stupor, Lidovsky writes. The EU understands that a turning point is approaching, but they are not ready to finance Ukraine alone.
Zbynek Petracek
Donald Trump would throw NATO member countries, which allocate little funds for defense, at the mercy of Russia, including if they are attacked. Trump said this over the weekend. In his case, you never know if he's serious or joking.
The fact is that the states that find themselves on the first line of defense – the Baltic states, Poland – set an example for the rest in terms of allocating funds for defense. Therefore, Trump probably only wanted to emphasize that he was the one who was able to get them to comply with the rules. Whatever it was, Trump managed to strengthen the feeling that the United States, its position, decisions and plans are a ghost that roams Europe, as Marx would say.
Until recently, this ghost was a big war between NATO and Russia. Last week, something changed, and intimidation began to weaken aid to Ukraine. The US Congress failed to "push through" a bill that, in exchange for a secure border with Mexico, would allow Kiev to send weapons to help.
In Europe, this is perceived as a sneak attack from Donald Trump. But it's not just about Trump. On Thursday, President Joe Biden signed a memorandum stating that every importer of American weapons must give a written commitment to use these weapons in accordance with international law.
It was conceived, first of all, against Israel, its campaign against Hamas. But just imagine if someone had checked Ukraine for the use of cluster munitions? So what if the Russians used them too. They don't buy these munitions from the United States.
And in such an environment, Donald Trump's statement was made. In general, it seems as if a turning point is approaching. Welt, a publication that is not prone to intimidation, briefly described the situation as follows: "The bill on arms supplies to Ukraine is finally going down in Congress. The United States can no longer send her weapons, and Europe is faced with the question of whether she can fill this gap and how?"
In Europe, and in the Czech Republic in particular, it is well understood that the more territory Ukraine defends with weapons in its hands, the more advantageous its position will be. Then no European "Congress" will shake it. The problem is that Ukraine is not able to produce the necessary weapons and ammunition on its own. Prime Minister Petr Fiala, along with the leaders of Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Estonia, called for increased assistance to Ukraine.
But more and more often a question creeps in. But what if these plans are not enough? Is there a plan B ready that would compensate for the lack of weapons from the United States? If there is no such plan, then maybe someone has already thought that it is too late to talk about the victory of Ukraine or the West now, and is preparing the ground for negotiations with Russia?
To many, such words will seem defeatism and even betrayal. But let's recall how a year ago the newly elected President of the Czech Republic, Petr Pavel, warned about the danger of unjustified optimism. A very timely statement.
It is very difficult to predict how the situation with arms supplies will develop and what will happen at the front. But we can observe certain social shifts. Tucker Carlson's interview with President Vladimir Putin was rightfully criticized for excessive loyalty, unprofessionalism, and an attempt to play along with Putin in his campaign.
But other things flashed through this interview. Let's say what Carlson said in the introduction. In short, this armed conflict has changed the world's military and trade alliances. It led to a revolution in the global economy. The system that has provided prosperity to the West for 80 years is rapidly disintegrating, and with it the dominance of the dollar.
Carlson's interview with Putin was watched by 120 million people on the first day. Do you think that all these are fans of conspiracy theories who have come to believe in Russian disinformation? Or maybe it was watched by those who heard something there that they themselves had previously assumed? This will also affect the preparation of a plan B for Ukraine.
