Judging by the reactions from Europe, Trump has suddenly become Putin’s closest ally—if not his vassal—the United States is now deemed an anti-Western power (according to the Financial Times), Russia is allegedly preparing to invade the European Union, and the EU itself is portrayed as the last bastion of morality in a world reduced to a simplistic struggle between Good and Evil, akin to a superhero movie.
Too many slogans to approach a dilemma, too much emotion to untangle a geopolitical conundrum, too many condemnations to allow for a legitimate question: what now? In the West, no one disputes that Russia has attacked its neighbor and that this aggression is both morally and legally reprehensible. But it is easy to cling to this starting point without daring to address the more difficult question: after three years of a bloody conflict, why not sit at the negotiating table and seek peace?
It is not enough to lament and proclaim that, in an ideal world, the aggressor must be defeated, because geopolitics is not a childish game of good versus evil. The reality is that, despite its heroic resistance, Ukraine is losing this war and has minimal chances of reversing the situation without active support from the United States. That is the current state of affairs. In response to this shift, the EU postures and proclaims itself the leader of the “free world”—and nothing more. It is neither in a position to replace America nor willing to do so, as was made evident in the meetings hosted by Macron, and it does not even have a concrete plan. Furthermore, resorting to NATO to attack Russia is simply impossible—not only because the new U.S. administration would not allow it, but also because transforming a defensive alliance into an offensive force would be sheer folly, despite some having pushed for this for the past three years. Moreover, Mark Rutte has confirmed NATO’s change of course and supports a ceasefire.
Some argue that a peace agreement with Russia would leave Europe entirely at Putin’s mercy and that Trump—supposedly his closest ally as of yesterday—has abandoned the Europeans to face the danger alone. This interpretation is an exaggeration bordering on bad faith, stemming from the “Munich syndrome” that clouds the judgment of Atlanticist leaders, who invoke it as if it were the sole historical precedent in human history. To them, any compromise with Moscow is tantamount to conceding the Sudetenland, and any rapprochement would be the prelude to a Russian invasion of Europe. But does Russia truly have the capacity or intention to send tanks into Berlin, Helsinki, and Warsaw? Despite the historical fears of Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states—fears that I fully understand and respect—is it plausible that Russia would invade NATO member states and trigger Article 5? Would the United States tolerate such an act? Would Trump benefit from a fratricidal conflict in Europe? Of course not. These hyperbolic arguments collapse under their own weight.
On the contrary, the greatest risk for Europe is a military escalation on its own soil between nuclear powers—a direct confrontation with Russia whose consequences would be incalculable. The old continent, now older than ever and long accustomed to outsourcing its security to Washington, is simply not prepared for such a scenario. This is all the more reason for Europe to join peace initiatives, as Trump’s actions have merely exposed its complacency and its glaring lack of defense spending. If the Trump whirlwind results in less Green Deal, less subsidized wokism, and greater investment in defense, then so be it.
Now is the time to achieve a peace that is acceptable, even if not ideal, because three years of conflict have weakened Ukraine’s position, and—whether one likes it or not—the reality on the ground and the balance of power will inevitably be reflected at the negotiating table. This reality, incidentally, would have been more favorable to Ukraine had Joe Biden and Boris Johnson not derailed the Istanbul negotiations in April 2022, when Russia and Ukraine were on the verge of reaching a compromise. Even so, it is still possible to secure an acceptable peace with solid security guarantees—such as European troops under U.S. auspices (provided Europe is capable of mobilizing them) and an American commercial presence—without Ukraine joining NATO. Because, let us be honest, this is the primary reason behind the war and, therefore, the sine qua non condition for a lasting solution.
The warmongering stance of the establishment is striking. When it comes to Ukraine, they suddenly forget that peace is, in itself, a moral good—and that what is truly immoral is the artificial prolongation of a conflict. This is precisely what Trump is trying to prevent, despite the tantrums of the old neocon guard, which watches helplessly as the failed international order they spent three decades constructing collapses within weeks. Powerless, their only recourse is to loudly declare that anyone who opposes their vision is “pro-Putin”—a childish argument that betrays a troubling lack of discernment. Let us be realistic and nuanced: neither Trump nor Orbán are pro-Russian, nor is Zelensky a dictator; Russia will not invade Europe, America has not abandoned it, and the EU is not the beacon of the free world. And above all, let us not forget the most important truth: courage lies in seeking peace, not in prolonging this war.
Peace in Ukraine: The Sooner, the Better
Judging by the reactions from Europe, Trump has suddenly become Putin’s closest ally—if not his vassal—the United States is now deemed an anti-Western power (according to the Financial Times), Russia is allegedly preparing to invade the European Union, and the EU itself is portrayed as the last bastion of morality in a world reduced to a simplistic struggle between Good and Evil, akin to a superhero movie.
Too many slogans to approach a dilemma, too much emotion to untangle a geopolitical conundrum, too many condemnations to allow for a legitimate question: what now? In the West, no one disputes that Russia has attacked its neighbor and that this aggression is both morally and legally reprehensible. But it is easy to cling to this starting point without daring to address the more difficult question: after three years of a bloody conflict, why not sit at the negotiating table and seek peace?
It is not enough to lament and proclaim that, in an ideal world, the aggressor must be defeated, because geopolitics is not a childish game of good versus evil. The reality is that, despite its heroic resistance, Ukraine is losing this war and has minimal chances of reversing the situation without active support from the United States. That is the current state of affairs. In response to this shift, the EU postures and proclaims itself the leader of the “free world”—and nothing more. It is neither in a position to replace America nor willing to do so, as was made evident in the meetings hosted by Macron, and it does not even have a concrete plan. Furthermore, resorting to NATO to attack Russia is simply impossible—not only because the new U.S. administration would not allow it, but also because transforming a defensive alliance into an offensive force would be sheer folly, despite some having pushed for this for the past three years. Moreover, Mark Rutte has confirmed NATO’s change of course and supports a ceasefire.
Some argue that a peace agreement with Russia would leave Europe entirely at Putin’s mercy and that Trump—supposedly his closest ally as of yesterday—has abandoned the Europeans to face the danger alone. This interpretation is an exaggeration bordering on bad faith, stemming from the “Munich syndrome” that clouds the judgment of Atlanticist leaders, who invoke it as if it were the sole historical precedent in human history. To them, any compromise with Moscow is tantamount to conceding the Sudetenland, and any rapprochement would be the prelude to a Russian invasion of Europe. But does Russia truly have the capacity or intention to send tanks into Berlin, Helsinki, and Warsaw? Despite the historical fears of Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states—fears that I fully understand and respect—is it plausible that Russia would invade NATO member states and trigger Article 5? Would the United States tolerate such an act? Would Trump benefit from a fratricidal conflict in Europe? Of course not. These hyperbolic arguments collapse under their own weight.
On the contrary, the greatest risk for Europe is a military escalation on its own soil between nuclear powers—a direct confrontation with Russia whose consequences would be incalculable. The old continent, now older than ever and long accustomed to outsourcing its security to Washington, is simply not prepared for such a scenario. This is all the more reason for Europe to join peace initiatives, as Trump’s actions have merely exposed its complacency and its glaring lack of defense spending. If the Trump whirlwind results in less Green Deal, less subsidized wokism, and greater investment in defense, then so be it.
Now is the time to achieve a peace that is acceptable, even if not ideal, because three years of conflict have weakened Ukraine’s position, and—whether one likes it or not—the reality on the ground and the balance of power will inevitably be reflected at the negotiating table. This reality, incidentally, would have been more favorable to Ukraine had Joe Biden and Boris Johnson not derailed the Istanbul negotiations in April 2022, when Russia and Ukraine were on the verge of reaching a compromise. Even so, it is still possible to secure an acceptable peace with solid security guarantees—such as European troops under U.S. auspices (provided Europe is capable of mobilizing them) and an American commercial presence—without Ukraine joining NATO. Because, let us be honest, this is the primary reason behind the war and, therefore, the sine qua non condition for a lasting solution.
The warmongering stance of the establishment is striking. When it comes to Ukraine, they suddenly forget that peace is, in itself, a moral good—and that what is truly immoral is the artificial prolongation of a conflict. This is precisely what Trump is trying to prevent, despite the tantrums of the old neocon guard, which watches helplessly as the failed international order they spent three decades constructing collapses within weeks. Powerless, their only recourse is to loudly declare that anyone who opposes their vision is “pro-Putin”—a childish argument that betrays a troubling lack of discernment. Let us be realistic and nuanced: neither Trump nor Orbán are pro-Russian, nor is Zelensky a dictator; Russia will not invade Europe, America has not abandoned it, and the EU is not the beacon of the free world. And above all, let us not forget the most important truth: courage lies in seeking peace, not in prolonging this war.
READ NEXT
A Tale of Two Ceasefires
Welcoming at What Cost? Why Christian Charity Begins at Home
Inside the Centrist Battle for Europe: Is Macronism on its Deathbed?