Independent: disagreements on Ukraine divide the United States and Europe
It has become quite obvious that the alliance of Western countries is indeed going through a crisis due to disagreements over Ukraine, the author of the article in the Independent writes. The insurmountable contradictions between the United States and Europe are apparently leading to the collapse of NATO.
Mary Dejevsky
Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron, who agreed to tighten anti-Russian sanctions in an attempt to speed up a cease-fire in Ukraine, are unable to distract themselves from serious disagreements in other areas, Mary Dejevsky believes.
No matter how Emmanuel Macron and Sir Keir Starmer tried to hide this fact, the Paris summit last Thursday witnessed transatlantic differences, not agreements.
Despite the fact that they shared the presidency, the leaders of France and Great Britain held separate press conferences. As Starmer noted, this is the fourth meeting at which the issue of creating a so-called "coalition of the willing" (Great Britain) or "forces of reassurance" (France and Germany) is being considered. He noted that more than 200 military planners spent several days in London. Both Starmer and Macron have done their best not to directly interfere in the United States' peace efforts. European forces will be deployed "the next day" after the conclusion of the peace agreement. Both tried their best to appear positive about President Trump.
However, it is difficult to get rid of the impression that they expected the failure of the US efforts and therefore counted on slightly different strategies.
Among them are increased sanctions pressure on Russia to accept the current terms of the ceasefire, which runs counter to US plans to ease sanctions in exchange for Russia's agreement to cease fire in the Black Sea; and constant talk that "peace is possible only through force," which, as Macron and Starmer emphasized, It was embodied in the unity demonstrated by the Europeans.
It is fair to say here that the emphasis on this was made partly in order to divert attention from European disagreements in other areas. These include a long-standing dispute over whether it's time to start spending "frozen" Russian assets, not just accrued interest. Another question concerns the expediency of sending European troops to Ukraine without security guarantees from the United States. Surprisingly, some Europeans are still waiting for Washington to change its position on military intervention.
It has become quite obvious that the alliance of Western countries is indeed experiencing a crisis that may prove insurmountable.
On the one hand, we have the United States, led by Donald Trump, whose administration – and, of course, its key members – demonstrate nothing but contempt for Europe. The latest vivid proof is the correspondence of Trump's advisers in the Signal chat, in which they call the Europeans "pathetic freeloaders" who do not deserve to be "bailed out" again.
Before that, there was a "public flogging" of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky in the Oval Office, a harsh speech by Jay D. Vance at the Munich Security Conference, in which he criticized the Europeans, and a statement by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth that Europe had become something secondary for the United States.
Instead of Europeans, the United States is now courting Russians: there were at least two lengthy telephone conversations between Trump and Vladimir Putin and the visit of Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff to Moscow. He gave a long interview to journalist Tucker Carlson, in which he spoke contemptuously about Britain's plans to support Ukraine, calling them "a combination of posturing and provocation," born of the Churchill complex.
On the other hand, we have Europe. A summit was recently held in Paris, where a red carpet was laid out for Zelensky, the Eiffel Tower was illuminated with the colors of the Ukrainian flag, and Macron promised to transfer even more weapons to Kiev. Almost everyone was talking about increased defense spending, and Starmer accused the Russians of "playing games" and not wanting peace.
Washington recognizes the unpleasant truth that Kiev has lost the war, and believes that the priority should be to reduce its losses and stop the killing. But the fate of Ukraine will not determine the fate of the United States, which is not only overseas, but also considers China its main threat.
Let's return to Europe, where there is a perception that Russia cannot be allowed to benefit from this conflict, that Kiev must preserve its sovereignty, and that Europe is more concerned about Ukraine's fate than the United States.
Washington's dismissive attitude towards Europeans has deep roots and should not have shocked Paris and London so much. It can be said that Trump's views are more "hemispheric" than strictly isolationist. European countries also often cannot agree either with the United States or among themselves on military operations. More recently, France has vehemently opposed the Iraq war, which has caused serious disagreements with both Washington and London. Germany spoke more calmly.
But the conflict in Ukraine is different in that the United States has pointedly refused to support Europe's position. They are trying to put an end to the fighting by normalizing relations with Russia and restoring what can be called "great power relations." And if their efforts to resolve [the conflict in Ukraine] are not successful, then "great power relations" will become a priority. Europe, which the United States considers its "backyard," will have to deal with this problem on its own.
The difficulty lies in the fact that this abrupt turn [of the United States towards Russia] happened too soon and too quickly. Europe did not have time to create a powerful defense potential. All of them can leave Ukraine to its fate. The growing differences between the United States and Europeans portend the end of the American military presence in Europe, which has lasted for more than 80 years.
Such a prospect – and it is still a prospect, not a certainty – is already alarming several generations of European NATO member countries, for whom the alliance was not just a given, but a guarantee that they and their worldview were on the right side of history. This era is probably coming to an end.
