The White House’s diplomatic overtures to Moscow were met with a muted and sceptical reception in Brussels. The European Union maintained its adherence to the original paradigm of the conflict: that Russia’s position is illegitimate and must be reversed through comprehensive isolation; that Ukraine requires unwavering support by all available means; and that Kiev’s domestic political shortcomings, however disagreeable, must be temporarily set aside.
The United States, in contrast, pivoted to a new and starkly pragmatic calculus: Russia is too resilient to be forced into capitulation; sanctions, while costly, are strategically ineffective; the war drains resources while allowing Moscow to challenge US interests in other theatres; the immense investment in Ukraine yields no tangible political return, being swallowed by the war effort and corruption; this entanglement must be concluded, ideally on terms favourable to Washington; if Europe chooses to sustain the confrontation with Russia, it must assume the full burden alone; and any future assistance to Kiev must be repaid.
The new American paradigm was unlikely to yield quick results. Russia had already paid a huge price in the Ukrainian conflict. Therefore, it was natural to push for a carefully considered solution rather than a spontaneous ceasefire. Negotiations were up and down, with inevitable disagreements and irritation at the opponent’s intransigence. However, over the course of the year, a shift in the parameters of compromise became evident, in favour of the realities on the ground. The American position shifted away from unrealistic expectations of Ukraine returning to its 1991 borders or NATO membership. The US avoided imposing new sanctions against Russia, with the exception of the blocking restrictions on two major Russian energy companies. The Ukrainian leader was publicly and harshly criticised by the US President and Vice President. The EU, on the contrary, consistently supported the Ukrainian president.
The growing divergences between the US and the EU were not limited to the Ukrainian issue. Donald Trump’s statements about the possible annexation of Greenland caused some consternation among allies. The island is under Danish jurisdiction. Copenhagen is a NATO ally of the United States and one of the most vocal supporters of a common Atlantic policy. Furthermore, the United States has long had military infrastructure on the island, and Danish authorities have historically not interfered with US military activities in Greenland. Trump’s statements were perceived as populist, but they left a bad taste. Analogies with 2014 and Russia’s reunification with Crimea inevitably came to mind, although the historical and political contexts of the two cases differed significantly. Trump’s initiatives have not yet been followed up on, but they have entered the political agenda.
The US Vice President’s public criticism of democracy in individual EU countries also broke the mould. This was voiced at the Munich Security Conference, a key forum for the Euro-Atlantic community. “Europe has departed from its fundamental values — those that connect it to the United States of America,” noted Vice President JD Vance, citing digital censorship, freedom of speech and conscience, and problems with elections. Vance’s ideas were subsequently developed in the US National Security Strategy.
The Valdai Discussion Club was established in 2004. It is named after Lake Valdai, which is located close to Veliky Novgorod, where the Club’s first meeting took place.
Please visit the firm link to site
