In Paris, European leaders declared that peace cannot be achieved without them and vowed to step up their support for Ukraine. But is Europe capable of independently financing and maintaining Ukraine’s defense if the role of the United States is reduced?
There is often a vast gap between rhetoric and reality. The world we are heading toward is built for strong and decisive nations. Europe is neither a nation nor a strong, integrated military and economic power. Its control over Ukraine is gradually slipping away. The EU has repeatedly stated that the war must continue until full liberation is achieved. This stance delegitimizes its claim to a seat at the negotiating table,
Byrappa, a senior researcher at Hungarian Institute of International Affairs (HIIA), told our newspaper, adding:
Europe has no means to finance Ukraine’s defense under wartime conditions. It has virtually no economic growth.
According to the expert, Europe faces multiple challenges: the absence of its own artificial intelligence hub, the digital divide, new threats in the Arctic, and its relationship with the United States—all while society teeters on the brink of fragmentation.
The dilemma is whether to finance the war in Ukraine or to prevent further decline and disintegration.
Ramachandra Byrappa emphasized:
The United States does not want Europe to emerge as an independent player on the global stage. Thirty years ago, Europe was the real challenger to the U.S., not China. Then, the U.S. came up with globalization to weaken Europe’s industrial capacity by shifting it to China. President Putin proposed the idea of a 'common home,' but it was rejected.
He recalled that in the 1990s, France was at the forefront of digital innovation, but Germany and the rest of Europe ridiculed France’s proposal for a continent-wide digital revolution.
According to the expert, Europe has an opportunity to revive itself by integrating with the Indo-Mediterranean super-region. "But let’s just wait and see how creatively Europe will squander this opportunity."
It appears that Europe is its own worst enemy. To have a seat at the table of global governance, one must first be someone. But right now, Europe is invisible.
Byrappa also spoke about the situation in the Baltic region, which he described as particularly interesting due to its reliance on the United States. "They do not believe Europe can defend them independently, nor do they want Russia to win or gain a strong position in Ukraine, as they fear they could be next. That is why the Baltic states do not want to antagonize a future Trump administration, while other European countries are inclined to support Ukraine more aggressively—if they are excluded from negotiations. This has led to a divided European stance, raising the possibility that Europe may not adopt a unified position on the final settlement."
The goal is long-term stability
According to the expert, "both the United States and Russia appear to seek some level of long-term stability in their relationship," as dependence on China is not in their interests. Russia became reliant on China due to continuous U.S. sanctions since its 2008 intervention in Georgia. The aim now is to reverse this damaging process.
President Trump also suggested that Russia could be reinstated in the G8, as he does not view Moscow as a threat or a challenger.
On a global scale, this approach aligns with the positions of other middle and major powers. India, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and Brazil all maintain good relations with Russia, and Trump seeks to reshape U.S. foreign policy accordingly. This strategy would prevent frustrated nations like those in BRICS+ from seeking alternatives, such as a de-dollarization policy.
Riyadh could remain the hub for peace talks
Other contenders, such as Turkey, have expressed interest, but Riyadh remains the likely venue for peace talks. Turkey, as a NATO member, has complex and diverging interests, making it less suitable. The negotiating parties appear satisfied with Saudi Arabia’s role and may even see it in their interest to elevate Riyadh’s status as a stabilizing force in the Middle East,
– the expert remarked, adding:
Europe joining the talks later would be like arriving at a restaurant only to pay the bill for a lavish dinner already consumed. The first phase will involve aligning American and Russian visions of world order. The second phase will address the thorny issue of Ukraine. Only toward the end of this process will Ukraine and Europe be invited—once the foundations are set. At that point, Europe will be forced to build upon the American and Russian blueprint. Ukraine’s concerns are justified, but it likely lacks the means to alter the course of events.
The situation that's evolved on the frontline may facilitate the peace talks.
The deteriorating situation is, for now, beneficial to both the United States and Russia. This allows Washington to pressure Ukraine into compliance, while Moscow’s demands may gain legitimacy. In this context, Russia may introduce new demands, hoping that at the very least, its original objectives regarding Ukraine will be met. One thing is certain: Europe has lost all its leverage and will be forced to accept a new security architecture reminiscent of Yalta,
– the expert concluded.
Cover photo: Manfred Weber, Ursula von der Leyen, and CSU Chairman Markus Soder (Photo: DPA/dpa Picture-Alliance via AFP/Sven Hoppe)
