The recent diplomatic thaw between the United States and Russia marks a pivotal moment in global geopolitics. With talks poised to address issues ranging from Ukraine to economic cooperation, the implications for Europe, NATO, and the broader international system are profound. Yet this dialogue is not merely about conflict resolution; it is a litmus test for whether the West can adapt to a multipolar world where Russia’s sovereignty is non-negotiable, and American hegemony is increasingly contested. The perception that Ukraine is being sidelined is nothing more than an illusion, as Kyiv remains an integral part of a broader strategic landscape that shapes both regional security and economic dynamics. Contrary to claims that Ukraine has been sidelined, the US-Russia discussions on the phone and in Riyadh reflect a pragmatic recognition that Kyiv’s fate cannot be disentangled from larger security and economic frameworks. As President Putin has emphasised, Ukraine will be included “when the time is right” – a nod to Moscow’s insistence that talks must first address root causes: the West’s interference in Ukrainian affairs and the failure to implement the Minsk II Agreement as well as respect other important international agreements that uphold sovereignty and the legitimate interests of all parties involved. Europe at the crossroads Amid these transformative shifts, Europe finds itself at a pivotal juncture: continue aligning with failing scripts of the previous US administration or pursue strategic autonomy that also accommodates Russia’s security imperatives. The US pivot to domestic priorities and global politics shifting to different theatres (e.g., Indo-Pacific) – with absolutely obvious-by-now growth of China’s influence – will certainly leave the EU to shoulder more burdens, which should fuel calls for “European strategic autonomy.” Trump’s transactional approach to NATO – questioning defence spending and hinting at withdrawal – has exposed the fragility of transatlantic ties. Meanwhile, the Ukraine conflict’s economic fallout (unprecedented energy crises, inflation) should have eroded European confidence in US-centric policies long time ago. Nevertheless, calls for “strategic autonomy” are growing, driven by necessity. Reduced US involvement, perhaps, could (in fact, it should) even incentivise EU nations to negotiate directly with Moscow, crafting security frameworks that balance Russia’s concerns with European stability. Yet, what Trump terms the “deep state” is not confined solely to American institutions – Europe’s pro-Washington elites, reinforced by Biden-era investments in anti-Trump governance structures, are likely to oppose any significant strategic shift. Perhaps this explains why Trump appears under intense time pressure, anxious that he might not execute his key manoeuvres swiftly enough. It is important to recall that during his first term, he faced relentless opposition from entrenched interests – marked by persistent infighting within his administration and Congress’s efforts to undermine international agreements. In anticipation of a potential Trump resurgence, the Biden administration has proactively consolidated pro-Washington governance structures worldwide, ensuring they remain united against him. Recent revelations from audits by figures like Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency indicate that US agencies funnelled hundreds of billions – possibly even up to a trillion dollars – […]
6 d ago
More
