The second verse of the Ukrainian national anthem — “Fate/luck still smiles on us, fellow Ukrainians” — is unfortunately no longer true. Even more significantly, we must extend this retreat of fortune to Europe: Fate/luck no longer smiles on us, fellow Europeans. The current state of affairs has become so grave that we must reiterate the same familiar points—perhaps they will resonate more today, as the crisis has become overt.
For anyone who observes our media landscape, it is abundantly clear how U.S. President Donald Trump’s new administration has disrupted our timeline in regards to both domestic and international policy. But why should Europe be the one deemed responsible for restoring order? It isn’t solely because Europe appears to be the major casualty of Trump’s new global strategy.
Some of us recall the iconic opening of “The Communist Manifesto”: “A specter is haunting Europe — the specter of communism. All the powers of old Europe have united in a holy alliance to exorcise this specter: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies…”
Could we not use similar language to depict the current perception of “Europe”? A specter is haunting the world — the specter of Eurocentrism. All the forces of old Europe and the new world order have allied to exorcise this specter: Nigel Farage and Russian President Vladimir Putin, AfD and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, pro-immigrant anti-racists and defenders of traditional European values, Latin American leftists and Arab conservatives, West Bank Zionists and Chinese “patriotic” communists…
There is a deep parallel between Trump’s critiques of environmentalism, political correctness, and LGBT+ rights, and the discord between Russia and Europe. One simple question must be asked: Which civilization today fully embodies the triad that Trump attacks? Only one: European civilization, representing the latest expression of Enlightenment ideals.
In an interview on July 15, 2018, right after a tumultuous meeting with EU leaders, Trump identified the European Union as the primary “foe” of the U.S., ahead of Russia and China. His goal is to dissolve European unity, and this effort resonates in an increasing number of European nations (Hungary, Germany, Austria, the U.K.).
During the Munich Security Conference, the first act of U.S. Vice President JD Vance was to launch a fierce ideological attack on Europe, accusing its leaders of stifling free speech, failing to curb illegal immigration, and shying away from the true beliefs of their citizens. He openly questioned whether the current values of Europe deserved defense by the U.S.
Today, “Europe” is a battleground of ideological and political conflict. Various conceptions of Europe coexist in a kind of superposition: the conservative vision of Europe as a collection of Christian sovereign states, the technocratic portrayal of Europe as an economic entity, and more.
So which version of Europe is troubling to Trump and European populists alike? It is the Europe of transnational unity, the Europe that recognizes the necessity to move beyond the limitations of nation-states in order to address the challenges of our time. It is the Europe that strives to uphold the Enlightenment principle of solidarity with victims, aware that humanity is united — that we are all in the same boat (or, as we say, on the same Spaceship Earth), making the distress of others our own concern.
This leads us to the problematic Munich Security Conference. Timothy Garton Ash raised a critical question regarding this conference: “Will the peace be like Chamberlain’s peace for our time?”
I would argue that it could turn out to be even worse due to our current era of BRICS multipolarity. Both prospects of peace that Trump’s administration is pursuing — Gaza and Ukraine — illustrate how the emerging BRICS world will operate. Yes, it will be multipolar, but characterized by a few powerful states each defining their own sphere of influence while limiting the sovereignty of their smaller neighbors. Trump’s foreign policy aligns perfectly with the BRICS model: He concedes that Ukraine is within Russia’s sphere of influence while asserting that Canada, Greenland, Mexico, and Panama belong to the U.S. sphere of influence.
“He (Trump) admits Ukraine is in Russia’s sphere of influence while insisting that Canada, Greenland, Mexico, and Panama are in the U.S. sphere of influence.”
That’s why he swiftly initiated negotiations with Putin, openly sidelining Europe from the peace discussions. Even when Trump and Putin disagree on various issues, they already share a common language. It is unsurprising that Trump suggested Russia should rejoin the G7, indicating a general normalization of relations with Russia. Therefore, Europe should not only unify as a significant power within the BRICS framework; it should serve as an exception, a place that extends support to victims of the emerging BRICS powers, each of which delineates its own sphere of influence.
The proclaimed U.S. takeover of Gaza exemplifies what occurs within a superpower’s sphere of influence: To put it plainly, you do as you please, discarding all facades. When Trump unveiled his plan to dominate Gaza, we reverted to the two-state proposal rejected by Israel, with one minor modification: The two states are not Israel and Palestine but Israel and the United States.
So what happens if Trump prevails and peace is established in a greater Israel that has undergone ethnic cleansing? Shakespeare noted, “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.” The horror with Trump is even greater: If his malevolent actions succeed, they will be perceived as good, regarded as a means to achieve peace.
The U.S. peace plan will leave Ukraine caught between two forms of colonization. The eastern region will be annexed directly by Russia, while the western portion will effectively become an economic colony, with substantial segments of its fertile land already in the hands of Western corporations, its natural resources exploited, and so forth. For Trump, a “peace guarantee” signifies assurances from both parties (Ukraine and Russia) that the U.S. will have unimpeded access to Ukraine’s natural resources to finance its military assistance to Ukraine. Thus, Russia will retain (part of) its share, and the U.S. will consume (part of) it, leaving Ukraine with nothing — at best, merely symbolic titles.
What steps can Europe take in what former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis describes as “Europe’s last chance to reclaim autonomy from the U.S.?” Numerous actions. Concerning Gaza, Europe could transcend merely condemning the Trump-led takeover and instead organize a large-scale relief effort, sending food, medical supplies, tents, and other essentials by sea and from Egypt. If the U.S., alongside Israel, were to obstruct this aid, the already glaring truth would become undeniably evident.
Regarding Ukraine, Europe must realize the implications of what Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky articulated in Munich on Feb. 15, 2025: “Let’s be honest. Now we can’t rule out the possibility that America might say no to Europe on an issue that threatens it. Many leaders have discussed the necessity for Europe to possess its own military — an army for Europe.”
Ukraine now faces a difficult decision between the U.S. and Europe. Until now, it has relied on both for support, but the divide is now stark. The U.S. message is clear: negotiations will commence between Washington and Moscow, with Kyiv joining at a later stage — its role diminished to merely endorsing whatever decisions the two dominant powers reach. The implied threat? If Kyiv declines, it will be left to fend for itself — in conjunction with a Europe that is conspicuously omitted from the dialogue, despite the war affecting its territory. Statements by U.S. Vice President JD Vance targeting Europe emphasize that the real focus of the U.S. policy shift on Ukraine is not Ukraine itself but Europe — particularly its legacy of emancipation.
“The U.S. message is clear: negotiations will begin between Washington and Moscow, with Kyiv joining later — its role reduced to signing whatever the two major powers decide.”
The lingering question remains: Will Putin take the negotiations seriously, or are they merely another chapter in Russia’s ongoing expansion? The answer is not deeply rooted in Russia’s essence — it hinges largely on how others respond to Russian geopolitics.
So, once more, what should and could Europe do to assert its position as an autonomous power? First, Europe must distinctly (re)define itself — and here arise complications, as states and populist movements oppose both a united Europe and its legacy of liberation.
Second, a component of this redefinition involves military autonomy. John Bolton predicts that Trump will withdraw the U.S. from NATO — let’s hope this occurs and NATO transforms into the military force of a united Europe.
Third, Europe will need to rethink its economic strategy to pursue greater coordination and — to employ the prohibited term — planning. Large-scale, mandatory planning, rather than the vague concepts of “coordination” or “collaboration,” is the only path forward to address the crises threatening our very existence.
Planning amidst multiple crises must integrate aspects that may seem contradictory: while outcomes cannot be fully anticipated or planned, this very unpredictability necessitates thorough preparation. In summary, even though crises cannot be meticulously charted, they demand extensive planning.
After carefully considering competing trends, we must act with full acknowledgment that unforeseen consequences may compel a change in direction. Does this sound utopian? Absolutely not — just examine some of the world’s most flourishing economies, where the state plays a pivotal role in regulating and directing economic activities, from Switzerland and Singapore to South Korea.
In essence, the position that Europe should adopt today is that of principled pragmatism. Groucho Marx famously stated, “These are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.” This exemplifies unprincipled pragmatism — when those in authority alter their principles solely to maintain their power.
In the ongoing negotiations for peace in Ukraine, Trump presents himself as a pragmatic realist, urging all parties to make the least harmful choice. However, as Jerry Garcia aptly noted, “Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.”
On one hand, there exists the dogged commitment to principles — adhering to them even at the cost of economic and social unrest. Principled pragmatism does not seek a compromise between these two extremes; it entails something much more precise: when circumstances shift dramatically, we must recalibrate many of our specific positions to remain true to our core principles.
For Europe, the principle at stake is unwavering loyalty to the legacy of the Enlightenment, while the pragmatic aspect necessitates navigating unpredictable and complex choices. Europe is unmistakably no longer regarded as the U.S.’s principal ally, so one avenue worth considering is a strategic partnership with China against the emerging alliance of the U.S., Russia, and India. Although China aligns more closely with Russia in the conflict over Ukraine, it has indicated that it does not fully endorse Russia’s aggressive policies.
Europe should seize this crisis as a chance to reaffirm its position and regain strength. French President Emmanuel Macron was correct to summon an urgent gathering of European leaders in Paris, but the fundamental question is how far this group can progress. Will it be yet another declaration — an excuse for inaction? In recent decades, Europe has been filled with such declarations.
Thus, my conclusion is not cautiously optimistic but rather pessimistic — though I hope miracles are still possible. The battle seems nearly lost, yet not completely. We often hear that Europe is trailing behind the U.S. and China in digitalization and AI. However, being delayed can sometimes be advantageous: it provides us with the opportunity to observe others making inevitable blunders and to enter the arena in a more knowledgeable manner. It is here that we should remember Nietzsche’s adage: “What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger.”
Trump is trading Ukraine’s future for a quick win
As many others have now concluded, this year’s Munich Security Conference (MSC) was pretty remarkable. Indeed, it may have been as defining an event as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s infamous 2007 speech, which marked a shift toward a more openly hostile Russian policy toward the West. That shif…
