European countries confer without Brussels Is the EU losing its global influence?

The European Union's strategic miscalculations on the global stage have led not only to a decline in its influence but also to unprecedented internal divisions. As is well known, the EU and its member states were not invited in any capacity to the Russian-American negotiations, despite the fact that issues of crucial importance to them were being discussed.

When the EU attempted to respond, the bloc’s unity disintegrated entirely. Each of the two emergency European summits held last week was attended by roughly one-third of the union’s members, with a different set of countries participating each time. Meanwhile, another third of the bloc’s members did not attend either summit. Amid other ongoing crises within European states, this has become yet another illustration of the EU leaders’ inability to realise their unjustifiably inflated ambitions. Will the EU survive in the new international reality?

Who will be held accountable for Ukraine’s "Euro-integration" balance?

For the past couple of decades, EU leaders have been overwhelmed by ambition, shifting at a certain point from pragmatic integration to ideological expansion. Ukraine played a crucial role in this strategy. Not too long ago, before its conflicts with Russia began, the country was, in a sense, a "second France"—the largest European state with a population of nearly 50 million and the remnants of once-advanced Soviet-era scientific and industrial sectors. And this is without even touching on the geopolitical aspect—the EU’s potential reach, through Ukraine, to the borders of the Caucasus and key central regions of Russia. In short, before its two "Maidans," Ukraine had the potential to significantly strengthen the EU both economically and strategically.

However, all these advantages were destroyed in the increasingly uncompromising and ideologically driven struggle for Ukraine between the EU and Russia. Much like the current Armenian elites, Ukrainian leaders once sought to balance membership in both the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union. However, liberal dogmatists in Europe and the United States refused to accept such an arrangement.

As a result of the ensuing conflicts and confrontations, Ukraine is no longer a unified country—its economy and scientific sector have collapsed, and its population is rapidly declining, particularly among the working-age demographic. Naturally, no one will be held accountable for this version of "Euro-integration," which has left the country in ruins. Yet, certain EU politicians—who at the time acted in concert with liberal American elites—played a role in this outcome. After all, nothing about the current situation was inevitable; several countries bordering Russia successfully joined the EU and NATO without engaging in war with Moscow.

However, this kind of "Euro-integration" has also harmed the EU itself—its investments in the "Ukrainian project" so far seem to be failures. It's not even about the sums that the EU is now debating with Trump—who contributed more. The issue is that, unlike the United States, which did not stake any of its vital interests on opposing Russia in Eastern Europe, the European Union did exactly that.

Before the 2022 Russia-Ukraine war, the EU began to sever long-standing ties with Russia and reduce transit through it. After the war broke out, it even abandoned the supply of critical raw materials and energy resources from Russia. Given the continent's topography, this also meant difficulties in sourcing similar raw materials from other countries to the east of the EU—it's hard to bypass Russia.

However, if Russia were to be defeated, the EU would have the opportunity to regain Russian raw materials, transit routes, and markets—but on even more favourable terms. For this reason, billions in aid to Kyiv could have seemed like an acceptable price. If that was the calculation, it is now clearly not paying off.

Nevertheless, Brussels has not reconsidered its positions, and the EU leadership has declared its readiness to make further sacrifices in order to continue its previous Ukrainian policy. On February 14, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced that the EU would accelerate Ukraine's accession process. However, if twenty years ago this would have meant the addition of another "France," now it means the integration of a vast territory with a destroyed economy, infrastructure, and even environment, and with few natural resources. The EU’s vast resources will be tied up for decades in restoring at least a minimal functioning of the country.

It’s not surprising that the United States, while refusing to accept Ukraine into NATO, welcomes its accession to the EU. Why not? This guarantees the destruction of the EU as a potential global competitor to the US, an "alternative West." After all, the idea of a "unified Europe" as a competitor to the US was discussed even before China became a focus! But in reality, the EU may not be able to withstand such political, strategic, and economic investments in eastern European expansion—something the events of the past week have shown. Especially since the leader of one of the largest member states is now actively working to "tear apart" the EU.

"Strategic uncertainty" or just empty talk?

In response to the Russian-American negotiations, Brussels churned out yet another sanctions package against Russia with the usual contents—new lists of names and ships, along with an aluminium ban (which will still flow, but through intermediaries, just like oil, gas, and essentially everything else). The EU leadership did not dare to call a summit of the "united Europe"—after all, how could they, if they are afraid to even respond to direct attacks from Trump?

Yet, this is precisely when the EU has a unique opportunity to strengthen itself and, taking advantage of NATO's effective paralysis, finally take charge of the main issues of European security. Isn’t this exactly what "Iron Ursula" and her team of "strong women" were talking about?

But no, everyone fell silent, and it was French President Macron who took the lead, holding not one but two such events, throwing aside decorum and splitting the EU into two factions, losing some countries in the process. On February 17, he gathered the bureaucratic elite of the EU and NATO, as well as the leaders of Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Spain, Italy, and Poland, in Paris. The British Prime Minister also attended, as he once again draws closer to the EU, with his own scores to settle with Trump’s team. The meeting raised eyebrows due to its exclusivity, and the BBC explained that the idea was to gather the "most powerful military powers" of Europe.

Then, on February 19, Macron invited those he presumably considered less important allies to Paris. These included Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Greece, Finland, Romania, Sweden, and Belgium, as well as non-EU countries Canada and Norway.

In total, 11 out of the 27 EU member states were left out of both Paris events, including some quite influential and neighbouring countries like Hungary and Slovakia, not to mention more distant nations like Ireland or Portugal. However, these manipulations to limit participation did not help the organizers—the two summits ended with a negative result. By Monday, it became clear that the EU could discuss sending its troops to Ukraine as auxiliary forces, peacekeepers, or whatever else, but it was unable to assemble a significant number of such forces. Even some countries known for their radically anti-Russian stance, such as Poland, refused to participate. Poland's Defence Minister, Mariusz Błaszczak, stated that Warsaw would not send its soldiers, adding that "no country bordering Russia should take part in a potential stabilization mission in Ukraine, as it would easily lead to provocations."

In this situation, even the summit organizer, President Macron, declared that he would not send "ground troops," admitting that if he ever spoke otherwise, it was only to create "strategic uncertainty."

In other words, Europe has no answer to the new strategic reality, in which they can no longer operate in Ukraine alongside the United States. What is even worse for Brussels is that the summits were held outside the EU framework, demonstrating that not only Trump but now even Macron considers the EU irrelevant. It says a lot when even EU leadership, headed by von der Leyen, attended these events.

Once, the media was outraged by the words of a prominent U.S. official from the Obama administration, Victoria Nuland, who, during the 2014 Kyiv Maidan, did not mince words about the need to coordinate “mediating efforts” with the EU: “F** the EU”. Now, her curse seems to have come true. The EU has indeed become irrelevant.

Here is another recent illustration: despite calls from both von der Leyen's new team and the President of Ukraine for the creation of a "European army," none of the relatively large EU countries have supported the idea. Even Poland recently, through its Defence Minister, stated that it sees no sense in this endeavour. And this was even during the preliminary discussion phase! The readiness of Brussels bureaucrats to unveil such a delicate plan without securing any support beforehand illustrates the level of professional competence at the top of the EU.

And when it comes to specific disputes over resources and power among member states, Brussels has become powerless under the pressure of national governments that openly ignore union-wide agreements. It’s one thing when a large, self-sustaining country like Germany initially reinstated border checks against EU norms, and now, as the Poles complain, secretly exports and dumps illegal refugees on their territory (they conveniently leave out the fact that these refugees were illegally allowed entry by Poland into Germany). But now even smaller countries, which receive significant subsidies from Brussels, are beginning to disregard its directives. For example, Lithuania’s new Prime Minister, Gintautas Paluckas, declared that if a deal cannot be reached at the EU level regarding the "temporary" suspension of the so-called Maastricht criteria (financial-economic standards aimed at preventing EU countries' growing debt), "the matter will be resolved regardless of whether anyone objects," and the European Commission will not dare impose fines.

Against this backdrop, Trump's team is openly planning to build relations with European countries based on bilateral ties, without looking to Brussels. This explains their support for political forces in the upcoming elections in Germany and Romania, which oppose not only the strengthening of Brussels' bureaucracy but also "Euro-Atlanticism," the foundation of post-1945 Western European relations with the U.S.

The concept of "Euro-Atlanticism" — Europe following the U.S. in a sort of tandem — was primarily an idea driven by liberal elites, securing their interests by building a "bipolar West," consisting of two centres in the U.S. and Europe. During the Cold War, this seemed like a logical approach, as the main confrontation was with the USSR and its allies in Eastern Europe.

However, times have changed, and the forces backing Donald Trump no longer adhere to this concept. They seek a reorganization of the West to mobilize against China, with an increased role for the U.S. (this is tied to systemic crises across the West, which mean Washington can no longer share resources and markets with its allies as it once did).

Initially, the antagonism between Trump and the EU appeared to be a geopolitical imperative (the EU as a potential competitor to the U.S.) or an ideological opposition (after the defeat of liberals in the U.S., Brussels became their stronghold). However, it now seems more like a pragmatic calculation. Why engage with the EU at all if its own members, large and small, consider it increasingly irrelevant, and the leadership in Brussels is headed by people whose competence is widely questioned?

How many legions does the European Union have?

History is indeed repeating itself before our eyes, and contrary to the common aphorism, not as a farce, but as a bloody drama. As is well known, at the start of World War I, it was on the "Galician fields" of Ukraine and near what is now Kaliningrad that the great Western European empires and Russia clashed, which, though not immediately, eventually contributed to their collapse, as well as to the downfall of several other major geopolitical players. 

Today, the European Union’s project is effectively being buried in the fields of Eastern Europe, at least in its current form. It has turned into a geopolitical dwarf, despite the rational ideas embedded in it by its pragmatic creators, and despite the enormous economic and intellectual potential of the countries on the continent. One reason for this is that once again, the major geopolitical players of Western Europe and Eurasia have failed to establish sustainable cooperation due to their disregard for the interests of the smaller players located between them in Eastern Europe. The latter has been destabilized as a result of the EU-NATO rivalry with Russia since the mid-2010s — for example, the Russian-Ukrainian war would have been impossible without the prior destabilization of Ukraine through the demonization of Eastern Ukrainians and everything associated with them in the "European integration" discourse. As a result, massive resources from all sides are now being spent on military expenditures instead of development.

Indeed, even in Ancient Rome, it was understood that the destabilization of small but strategically important regions with complex tribal structures leads to enormous problems, resulting in wars that can bring any empire to its knees. For the Roman Empire, its "Eastern Europe" was the Balkans, where at its peak it was forced to keep a dozen legions — more than in any other region of the Empire, as even the entire Asian Middle East could be handled with just eight, and Britain required only three.

The EU cannot gather "legions" for Eastern Europe. It does not even have enough for the more modest task of settling the current conflict in Ukraine, although President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke of the 200,000 soldiers the West needs to send to address this issue — a number far from fantastic.

Of course, there will be other players who will fill the strategic vacuum. It may be some EU-NATO countries or groups of such countries (e.g., the United Kingdom, France, Poland). But that will be a different story. And since Brussels, at this pivotal moment, when NATO is paralyzed and the contours of the future history of the region are being shaped for a long time, cannot respond to the challenge of the times, the current European project can only be saved from degradation or even collapse by a miracle.