Europe seeks confrontation with Russia to drag America into it Expert opinion on Caliber.Az

In an exclusive interview with Alexander Shatilov, Deputy Scientific Director of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Caliber.Az delves into the complexities of US-Russia relations and the broader geopolitical dynamics. Shatilov offers insights into US President Donald Trump’s nuclear disarmament initiative, the prospects for peace in Ukraine, and the European Union's growing tensions with Russia.

Alexander Borisovich, how do you assess US President Donald Trump's recent call for nuclear disarmament and his initiative to begin negotiations on denuclearization with Russia and China? What, in your opinion, is behind this initiative, and are Moscow and Beijing ready to engage in such talks?

– Donald Trump's initiative for global nuclear disarmament can be broken down into two components. Firstly, the US president is known for his "PR-driven" approach to politics. For this reason, putting forward a global initiative based on the principle of "everything good and against everything bad" is likely intended to create the image of a peacemaker, while indirectly reinforcing America's status as a global hegemon.

Secondly, through this initiative, Trump is attempting to put Russia and China in a difficult position. Both countries rightly believe that only nuclear status, under the current conditions, guarantees their sovereignty and non-interference in their internal affairs. In conventional arms, the US and its allies hold a significant advantage.

– Will Trump be able to strike a deal with both sides of the conflict and end the war in Ukraine?

– In my opinion, Trump largely won the US presidential race because he convinced the American establishment that he was capable of negotiating with Vladimir Putin and stopping Russia, which is slowly but surely "grinding" Ukraine down, quite literally "carving out" territorial "pieces" from it.

It seems that US politicians still remember Zbigniew Brzezinski's advice in his book The Grand Chessboard, where he recommended never conceding control of Ukraine to Moscow, as this would allow Russia to effectively restore its status as a global power. That is why, even temporarily setting aside his favorite topic of "Chinese expansion," Trump, from the first days of his presidency, has been trying to engage in dialogue with the Kremlin regarding the cessation of hostilities and a global deal.

At the same time, he is trying, on the one hand, to "sweeten the deal" with Russia through various positive promises and even some tactical concessions (such as halting military supplies to the Ukrainian Armed Forces), while on the other hand, he aggressively lobbies for, and sometimes almost demands, an immediate peace agreement.

However, given the prior negative experience—both domestic and international—the Kremlin prefers not to rush into binding agreements with the US, suspecting that they could later be unilaterally revised by the West, either by Trump himself or his successor.

– Can it be said that today Washington and Moscow are in the same geopolitical boat? Could this lead to the lifting of American sanctions on Russia?

– I wouldn’t say that Russia and the US are in the same boat. Trump's policy is very contradictory and largely driven by "hype." He is not willing to make serious concessions, largely acting as a "seller of air" in negotiations with Russia—like promising to recognize Crimea and Sevastopol as part of it.

At the same time, Trump is a very strong businessman who is not willing to part with competitive advantages without a good reason. Therefore, he will continue to play the card of lifting sanctions for a long time, including using it to pressure Russian businessmen, who, in hopes of "relaxations," might push for peace with Ukraine at any cost.

Moreover, considering the cautious stance of the Russian leadership, Trump even threatened to tighten sanctions if Moscow does not show "readiness for peace."

– How realistic is the prospect of Europe replacing the US in military supplies to Ukraine?

– European politicians, in their current relations with the Russian Federation, are acting as "malevolent prosecutors." Their negative attitude toward Moscow is defined not only by situational factors but also by mental and ideological contradictions.

Therefore, against the backdrop of the "benevolent" Trump, the European Union, on the contrary, is demonstrating its readiness to fight for Ukraine until the end and even threatens to engage in open conflict with Russia. This gives rise to plans for deploying European "peacekeeping forces" to Ukraine, proposals for NATO aircraft to patrol Ukrainian skies, and even Macron's nuclear rhetoric.

However, Europe clearly lacks the necessary resources to initiate a major confrontation: there are neither enough weapons, nor significant combat-ready units, nor the military drive in pacifist European societies.

At the same time, there is an increasingly adventurous thought among Old Continent politicians: let's get involved in a confrontation with Russia, and then, willingly or unwillingly, America will be forced to support its allies in the Alliance.

– Do you think that only economic reasons prevent the European Union from pursuing an independent policy from the US, or is it much deeper than that?

– In my view, the European Union has been following the lead of the United States for several decades, not so much because of economic reasons (not long ago, Europe was economically prosperous), but primarily due to political reasons. Most importantly, it is due to the fragmentation of its politicians, their reluctance to defend sovereignty, and their alignment with the rather decaying idea of American-style globalization.

However, paradoxically, the EU now has a chance to play its own game—albeit within limited boundaries. The fact is, after Trump's return to power, the division within the American elite has only deepened.

Therefore, by opposing Trump, the Europeans may gain support from his opponents within the US, who, even if they lose the 2024 elections, are far from strategically defeated. They are gradually "emerging from the trenches," seeking to "pressure" the current president in implementing his MAGA agenda.

– How do you assess the results of the recent emergency EU summit in Brussels?

– The emergency summit in Brussels was not so much about supporting Ukraine (on this issue, there was a unanimous opinion among the participants—to support Ukraine to the very end) as it was about further interaction with Donald Trump's team, which has started a very complex and risky game aimed at de-escalating the Russia-Ukraine conflict, even at the cost of significant concessions from Zelenskyy.

Although, objectively, the West (including Europe) needs a "freeze" of the military-political situation, not everyone in the EU is willing to accept that Russia could emerge victorious—even with a relatively modest result.

From the Europeans' perspective, this would humiliate the West in the eyes of the international community and give rise to expansionist plans from Moscow. Therefore, judging by the mood of the Europeans, who, with their bellicose and provocative statements, are effectively undermining the "peacemaking" stance of the US, they will continue their course of tough confrontation with Russia.