After the tragic events of 9/11, neoconservative thinker Robert Kagan released a book that turned quite a few heads: Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order. His main argument was that while Europeans often celebrated their commitment to a rules-based global system, they heavily leaned on U.S. military strength to manage those nations bent on disrupting it.
However, the devastating aftermath of George W. Bush’s ill-fated war in Iraq revealed the limitations of Kagan’s theory. The U.S. "war on terror," which led to chaos in the Middle East and claimed countless lives, proved his analysis wasn’t without faults. Yet, Kagan did pinpoint a certain truth about how the West split responsibilities between military power and diplomatic influence. Fast forward twenty years, and Ukraine’s future might hinge on how this particular arrangement evolves in today’s shifting global order.
President Joe Biden’s eventual choice to allow Ukraine to use long-range U.S. missiles against Russia—particularly in retaliation to Vladimir Putin’s rumored deployment of North Korean troops in the Kursk region—provided a significant morale boost to Kyiv. Still, it didn’t drastically alter the brutal, ongoing stalemate of the conflict. A far more significant shift would occur if Donald Trump, who champions an isolationist stance, retracts American support next year, potentially pressuring Ukraine into an unjust peace settlement. Given this possibility, European countries urgently need a coherent strategy.
Creating such a strategy isn’t simple, as it demands clear political vision and leadership amidst numerous hurdles. A widespread fatigue over the war has permeated Europe following Ukraine’s unsuccessful counter-offensive in 2023, a newly erupted conflict in the Middle East, and a continuing cost-of-living crisis. As Germany gears up for a snap election in February, Chancellor Olaf Scholz remains firm on his stance against sending long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine. At the same time, fears of further conflict escalation were fuelled by Moscow’s alleged test-launch of a new hypersonic missile at Dnipro on November 21, even if it only contained a conventional warhead.
In this climate, Poland’s Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, is working towards building a coalition that includes Britain, France, and the Nordic and Baltic states to oppose any forced resolution on Kyiv. Currently, it seems that no peace discussions are underway between Moscow and Kyiv. While reclaiming all territory lost since 2014 might be an exceedingly lofty aim, Europe should ensure Ukraine maintains an upper hand in any future diplomacy. Should American support waver, Europe will need to step up its military and financial backing to bolster Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, during negotiations, making Europe’s stance clear and resolute.
Donald Trump’s ‘deal-oriented’ diplomacy is cause for concern, especially considering his views on NATO allies. Regardless, Europe must firmly oppose any attempt by the prospective U.S. president to support the division of a sovereign European nation. Diplomatic discussions hint at Zelenskyy’s approval of Trump’s "peace through strength" stance, although ultimately, it’s likely Europe will play a pivotal role in fortifying Ukraine post-Trump’s inauguration. In these turbulent times, standing by Kyiv is crucial for European stability. It’s essential to meet the challenge of securing Ukraine’s sovereignty, deterring further Russian aggression, and setting the stage for enduring peace and recovery.
