WEST VS. WEST

Few could have predicted that on the third anniversary of the Russian-Ukrainian war, the world would witness another confrontation—this time between the West and... the West. More precisely, between the United States and its European allies. The abrupt shift in American foreign policy priorities has left even seasoned political observers stunned. Ukraine's leader is now labelled a "dictator," while Russia is being treated as a partner, or at least a negotiating counterpart.

J. D. Vance As a Reflection of American Politics

The rift between Washington and the EU, evident since the new Republican administration led by Donald Trump took office, escalated into open confrontation following Vice President J. D. Vance's speech at the Munich Security Conference. Speaking on the first day of this prestigious global event, Vance openly criticised European politicians, leaving them in shock. Never before in the history of US-European relations has the divide between American and European leaders been so pronounced. "Misunderstanding" is perhaps too mild a term – it would be more accurate to describe it as a complete breakdown in communication.

The European political establishment dismissed Vance as a right-wing populist. Many European politicians explicitly stated that Europe now faces an unprecedented challenge – an existential threat.

A significant portion of Vance's speech focused on Ukraine and the perceived threats from Russia and China. Notably, he barely mentioned the conflicts in the Middle East or Ukraine, nor did he address broader international security issues. Instead, he argued that the greatest threat lies within the EU itself.

"The threat that worries me most about Europe is not Russia, not China, not any other external force. What worries me is the threat from within. Europe's retreat from some of its most fundamental values: values shared by the United States as well," Vance declared.

The mainstream European press interpreted his remarks as a call for right-wing populists to "seize power in Europe," with some even suggesting that the US would support such a move. Vance's promise to assist European citizens in defending their right to free expression, regardless of whether it aligned with US interests, was perceived as particularly provocative.

In essence, the American politician emphasised that his country would support any expression of free will by European citizens, even if it diverged from the US position. At the same time, his accusations of bias against certain influential European politicians struck many as peculiar.

European Reaction

Europe, it seems, is unaccustomed to such blunt and unambiguous statements, especially ones that are difficult to counter. Against the backdrop of surging popularity for far-right and ultra-conservative parties, the threat of banning their activities is unlikely to reverse the trend of voters rejecting the liberal mainstream, which still clings to power in most European countries.

The United States is urging Europe to take a critical look at this situation and to abandon the flawed practice of blaming external or domestic forces for its problems. Vance argued that the greatest danger to Europe is neither Russia nor China but "the danger from within."

For years, the US effectively paid for the loyalty of the European political elite by assuming de facto responsibility for the EU's security. However, the current administration, led by pragmatists, has made it clear that Washington no longer seeks loyalty from European countries. Instead, it wants allies capable of standing on their own and addressing European security issues without US assistance.

As Vance put it, "For years, we have been told that everything we fund and support is done in the name of our shared democratic values." But now, looking at Europe, he questions why the victors of the Cold War have abandoned the very values that enabled them to triumph over "tyrannical forces" on the continent.

In essence, Vance suggested that NATO's continued existence after the Cold War was justified by the US commitment to defending shared Western values. However, if these values are no longer universally upheld, the moral foundation of NATO itself is called into question.

Of course, Vance's speech was pre-approved by the American president and key members of the administration, making it a definitive statement of US foreign policy priorities for the foreseeable future.

Donald Trump himself hailed Vance's Munich speech as "the most brilliant speech ever." He remarked, "I heard him talk about freedom of speech. And I think that's the truth about Europe: it's been on the losing end. They are losing their wonderful right to free speech. I can see that. He made a very good speech, a brilliant speech. Europe should listen and start worrying."

Macron's New Failure

It would be inaccurate to claim that Vance's bold statements in Munich came as a complete surprise to European elites. However, since these remarks represent a formalised political strategy rather than off-the-cuff comments, collective Europe had no choice but to respond.

European leaders now face a dilemma: should they continue their current approach to Ukraine independently, without relying on Washington's support? Or should they attempt to secure a seat at the negotiating table before it's too late?

French President Emmanuel Macron sought to address this dilemma. True to his habit of emphasising Europe's strategic autonomy, he convened an emergency summit in Paris on February 18, inviting only those he deemed necessary. This move was intended to underscore France's central role in shaping the European security agenda.

However, the hastily organised summit, lacking a clear agenda or concrete proposals, ended in failure. Three hours of discussions yielded no tangible results, despite Macron's efforts to push his "sovereign" approach. The meeting produced only vague statements about accelerating efforts to ensure sovereignty, security, competitiveness, and investment in a pan-European defence industry.

Adding to the discontent, the Czech Republic, Romania, and Slovakia expressed frustration at being excluded from the emergency summit. This was particularly striking given that these countries, along with Poland (whose prime minister attended), are either neighbours or close partners of Ukraine.

The summit participants included the leaders of France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Poland, the Netherlands, as well as NATO and EU representatives. Notably, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz emphasised that any peace agreement on Ukraine must be guaranteed by the US.

Even French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou criticised the outcome of the Paris talks. He acknowledged that the EU is powerless to counter the growing rapport between Putin and Trump and that the meeting failed to clarify security issues on the continent, further exacerbating frustration with the current political climate.

It is clear that no European country is willing to antagonise the United States. Macron's attempt to portray European support for Kiev as a "collective decision" independent of Washington's stance has fallen flat.

Silence of the Lambs

Following the talks on February 18 in Saudi Arabia between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov regarding the Ukraine conflict, US Special Envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg arrived in Kiev. Notably, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky expressed disappointment with the Saudi talks, describing them as evidence of Russia's reintegration into the international community.

While Kellogg was negotiating with Zelensky in Kiev, Donald Trump took to social media to criticise the Ukrainian president, calling him a "dictator" and a "mediocre comedian." Trump also echoed Russian President Vladimir Putin's demand for presidential elections in Ukraine, noting that Zelensky's approval ratings hover around 4% and that he would likely lose if an election were held today. In response, Zelensky accused Trump of relying on misinformation from Russia, citing a poll that showed 58% of Ukrainians trust him as their leader.

In the US, Zelensky's remarks were met with a backlash, with officials advising him to "tone down" his criticism of Trump. Moreover, Trump stated that he did not consider Zelensky's presence at peace talks necessary, arguing that the Ukrainian president had failed to end the conflict despite three years of negotiations. "He has done a poor job of negotiating so far," Trump asserted.

The meeting between Kellogg and Zelensky took place under these tense conditions. Unsurprisingly, no joint statement was issued, and neither party answered journalists' questions afterward. Kellogg merely noted that he had "extensive and positive discussions in Kiev with President Zelensky, a struggling and courageous leader of a belligerent country, and his talented national security team."

Interestingly, European leaders chose not to intervene in this dispute. Polish President Andrzej Duda advised Zelensky to co-operate with Trump "peacefully and constructively."

No one dared to challenge Trump's near-ultimatum demands that Ukraine sign a treaty on rare-earth metals, which was later expanded to include control over other raw materials in the country.

For now, European leaders are offering timid support to Zelensky in his confrontation with Washington, but it remains unclear how long this will last given their own growing internal divisions. This lukewarm backing resembles nothing so much as the "silence of the lambs."