EU shows ‘outdated worldview’ as von der Leyen uses China, Russia as excuse to defend trade deal with US
By Wang Qi | Global Times | August 25, 2025
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen defended the EU’s trade deal with the US. By invoking Russia and China, she suggested that the failure to strike a deal would have been a gift to Europe’s rivals, according to media reports.
Chinese analysts have observed that von der Leyen’s remarks reveal a tendency among certain European politicians to politicize trade matters. Their emphasis on alliance with the US underscores Europe’s anxiety over American pressure, especially as Washington prioritizes its own interests and fails to treat Europe as an equal partner.
A trade war between the EU and the US would have been “celebrated” by Russia and China, von der Leyen wrote in a guest commentary for Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung published on Sunday, per the Bloomberg report.
“Instead, we agreed on a strong, if not perfect deal,” she added, warning that retaliatory tariffs could fuel a costly trade conflict with “negative consequences for our workers, consumers, and our industry,” Bloomberg reported.
Similarly, von der Leyen wrote in an op-ed for Spain’s El Mundo on Saturday, “Imagine for a moment that the two largest democratic economies had not managed to reach an agreement and instead launched a trade war — only Moscow and Beijing would be celebrating,” the Politico reported.
Von der Leyen’s remarks came after the release of EU-US joint statement on Thursday, which confirmed that the EU will accept tariffs of 15 percent on 70 percent of its exports to the US, including cars, pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. In return, the bloc will expand market access for US agricultural goods that are not sensitive for its own market, according to media reports.
Although von der Leyen described the move as a choice for “stability and predictability over escalation and confrontation,” the controversial trade deal with the US has drawn criticism. Former director-general Pascal Lamy has warned the accord risks undermining Europe’s credibility as a defender of rules-based trade, the Politico reported
Cui Hongjian, director and professor of the Center for European Union and Regional Development Studies at Beijing Foreign Studies University, told the Global Times on Monday that von der Leyen’s comments primarily serve to justify her compromises, as the US-EU trade agreement has substantially undermined European interests.
“Ironically, when the US imposes tariffs on Europe, it prioritizes its own interests, clearly not treating Europe as an equal partner,” Cui said, “Yet, Europe is willing to endure losses in its dealings with the US to maintain ongoing cooperation, in order to counter what it perceives as a greater ‘threat’ from non-Western economies, an approach [that] blatantly politicizes trade matters.”
Cui said such actions reveal that some European politicians cling to an outdated worldview, unwilling to face the reality of the US gradually distancing itself from its traditional alliance with Europe. “Their emphasis on the alliance only underscores their anxiety over the losses and economic shocks inflicted by the US, not by China and Russia.”
The South China Morning Post said the Thursday deal did not explicitly mentioned China, however, “veiled references appeared throughout” in terms of AI chips, as EU pledged to purchase $40 billion of AI chips from the US, and that it would adopt US security standards to “avoid technology leakage to destinations of concern.”
According to Cui, China and the EU are scheduled to engage in high-level interactions in the latter half of the year, which requires fostering a constructive atmosphere, adding that China will judge Europe more by its actions than its words.
If Europe takes actions that harm China’s interests, China will undoubtedly respond with countermeasures. However, when EU politicians exploit criticism of China for political gain, it sows discord in China-EU relations and even risks creating conflict, which would in turn affect China’s relationships with individual member states. This is a situation China cannot accept as well, said the expert.
The End of the Conflict in Ukraine at Sight?
Zelensky and the Europeans in Washington in Search of Saving Face
By Ricardo Martins – New Eastern Outlook – August 25, 2025
Seven European leaders rushed to Washington under the official banner of solidarity with Volodymyr Zelensky. Yet, the real motive was less about unshakable support for Ukraine and more about damage control.
Zelensky and the Europeans in Washington in Search of Saving Face
With negotiations advancing — and with Ukraine’s loss of territories and NATO membership already ruled out by Donald Trump — Europe’s leaders were scrambling to craft a narrative to their domestic audience that could justify defeat without admitting failure.
The Struggle to Save Face
For three years, the European mantra has been that “Russia cannot win.” Yet on the battlefield, it is Moscow that has the upper hand. The tactic, therefore, was to insist that Russia, as the supposed aggressor, must accept the obligations of the loser. But the reality is moving in the opposite direction: Europe now seeks symbolic concessions to sell to its public.
One of these face-saving gestures is the return of “kidnapped” Ukrainian children, based on contested numbers but useful as a talking point. Another is security guarantees for Ukraine — not NATO membership, but something that can be framed as protection. Zelensky, keen to please Trump, asked for $100 billion in arms, to be funded by Europeans but manufactured in the U.S. NATO’s Secretary-General eagerly echoed this line, presenting himself as a loyal messenger to “Daddy” Trump at Europe’s expense.
Meanwhile, territorial concessions remain taboo in European discourse. To admit them would be to acknowledge Putin’s victory, a political sin for leaders who have invested heavily in a narrative of inevitable Ukrainian triumph.
The Casting: Putin Absent, Yet Present
The most striking absence in Washington was also the most palpable presence. Putin was not in the room, but Trump invoked his name repeatedly, even phoning him for 40 minutes while Europe’s leaders waited. Each mention of Putin’s name drew visible discomfort across European faces, an unmistakable reminder of their diplomatic impotence.
As Djoomart Otorbaev, former Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan, put it: “Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Putin didn’t earn Trump’s respect through backroom schemes. He earned it on the battlefield and at the negotiating table. And that reality says more about today’s shifting world order than any rumour.”
Trump’s deference to Putin was not ideological; it was grounded in recognition of Russia’s gains. Western efforts to reverse the war’s trajectory have not succeeded, despite supplying Ukraine with advanced weaponry.
Europe’s Century of Humiliation Has Started
Europe’s frantic arrival in Washington — “like the Middle Ages, to homage their master” — symbolised a humiliating dependency: the continent’s leaders reduced to courtiers around a U.S. president already imagining his Nobel Peace Prize.
The delegation was a tableau of weakness. Ursula von der Leyen, in the name of the European Commission, reconfirmed the one-sided trade arrangements: 15% tariffs on European goods entering the U.S., zero tariffs on U.S. exports to Europe, $750 billion in energy and arms purchases, $600 billion in European investments in the U.S., and €150 billion earmarked for EU rearmament. A transfer of wealth and sovereignty dressed up as transatlantic unity.
The body language told its own story. Giorgia Meloni’s irritation was poorly disguised; Friedrich Merz remained wooden; Emmanuel Macron projected disdain; Keir Starmer hid behind note-taking. Von der Leyen managed only a strained smile, Mark Rutte melted into insignificance, and Zelensky — who should have been the central figure — appeared isolated at the margin, dignified but sidelined. Putin, a former KGB officer, and Trump, a former reality TV star and a real estate millionaire, both despised by the Europeans, loomed as the peace brokers. As put by a French analyst: “Quel cirque”.
The Security Guarantees Conundrum
The question of security guarantees has become the crux of European debate. Openly, leaders say territorial concessions are for Ukrainians to decide. Privately, they know the map is already shifting. What remains is an attempt to provide Ukraine with protections that appear credible, but that does not include NATO membership.
POLITICO reported that the Pentagon’s top policy official made clear the U.S. intends to play only a minimal role in guarantees. “There’s the dawning reality that this will be Europe making this happen on the ground,” admitted a NATO diplomat. In other words, Europe is on its own.
European capitals, however, still plead for U.S. assets: fighter jets stationed in Romania, access to American satellites for GPS and reconnaissance. Russia, through its envoy Mikhail Ulyanov, flatly rejected any foreign troops in Ukraine, while Sergey Lavrov dismissed Western security schemes without Moscow and Beijing as “a road to nowhere.”
Ukraine itself is unimpressed. Ten nations, including France and the U.K., have floated the idea of deploying troops, but Kiev sees such proposals as vague, amorphous, and unlikely to provide real guarantees. Former foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba captured the mood: “The so-called security guarantees are so amorphous. The only news is that the U.S. is willing to take part.”
Europe’s Internal Fractures
Even as leaders paraded unity in Washington, Europe’s internal divisions deepened. The European Parliament announced it would sue the Council over being excluded from negotiations on the €150 billion SAFE defence loan scheme.
In a telling sign of institutional fragility, Parliament was sidelined by Ursula von der Leyen’s Commission in the rush to fund rearmament. As Euractiv reported, 18 member states have already expressed interest in loans totalling €127 billion, but without parliamentary oversight, Europe’s democratic deficit widens.
In sum, the “road to nowhere” that Lavrov mocked may yet prove prophetic, not only for Ukraine’s elusive guarantees but for Europe’s strategic autonomy itself.
Ricardo Martins, PhD in Sociology, specializing in International Relations and Geopolitics
‘Don’t threaten us’ – EU state to Zelensky
RT | August 25, 2025
Hungary has warned Ukraine to stop disrupting its energy supply from Russia after Kiev targeted a key pipeline delivering oil to Central Europe.
Ukrainian forces struck the Soviet-era Druzhba (Friendship) pipeline three times this month, sparking outrage in both Hungary and neighboring Slovakia. The flow through the pipeline was last halted on Friday.
At a press conference during Independence Day celebrations in Kiev on Sunday, a reporter asked Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky how the attacks relate to Hungary’s opposition to Ukraine’s EU and NATO ambitions.
“We have always supported friendship with Hungary, but now the very existence of this friendship depends on Budapest’s position,” Zelensky replied with a smile, playing on the pipeline’s name.
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto issued a sharp rebuke on X. “Zelensky used Ukraine’s national holiday to threaten Hungary. We firmly reject the Ukrainian President’s intimidation,” Szijjarto wrote. He described the attack on Hungary’s energy supply as “an attack on sovereignty.”
“A war to which Hungary has nothing to do with can never justify violating our sovereignty. We call on Zelensky to stop threatening Hungary and to end the reckless attacks on our energy security!” he added.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga responded on X, writing to Szijjarto: “You don’t need to tell the Ukrainian President what to do or say, and when.” He urged Budapest to “diversify and become independent from Russia, like the rest of Europe.”
Szijjarto shot back: “Stop attacking our energy security! This is not our war!”
Unlike many EU countries, Hungary has refused to send weapons to Kiev and has heavily criticized Brussels for imposing sanctions on Moscow. The country maintains that Ukraine’s NATO membership could trigger an all-out conflict with Russia.
EU asks “Daddy” to make Hungary stop
The EU wants Hungary to drop its opposition to Ukraine’s membership in the EU
Remix News | August 20, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump called Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán to ask about his position on Ukraine’s accession to the European Union.
The American leader reportedly wanted to discuss the reasons why Orbán is blocking negotiations on Ukraine’s accession to the European Union.
“The call was the result of Trump’s conversations with a group of European leaders who had gathered at the White House to discuss ways to end Russia’s war with Ukraine. At one point, they asked Trump to use his influence with Orbán to persuade the right-wing populist to drop his opposition to Ukraine’s EU membership,” Bloomberg writes.
During a telephone conversation with Trump, Hungary expressed interest in holding another round of talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky.
Orbán, a close ally of Trump, is widely seen as an inspiration for the U.S. president’s political ideology as well as other right-wing politicians around the world.
On Tuesday, Orbán issued a statement suggesting that he understood Ukraine’s request for EU membership but did not intend to back down from his position.
“Ukraine’s membership in the European Union offers no security guarantees. Therefore, linking membership with security guarantees is unnecessary and dangerous,” he said.
Previously, Orbán has repeatedly said that Ukraine should not join the European Union so as not to bring the war to Europe, and should instead become a “buffer” country between Europe and Russia. Instead of accession, he offered Kyiv “strategic” cooperation – “pragmatic, flexible and based on common interests.” Orbán also considers EU sanctions against Russia ineffective. He has repeatedly criticized them as useless and harmful to the European economy, and in the past he has managed to secure the lifting of EU sanctions against several Russians.
Hungary on the brink of existential decision: confront Kiev and break with NATO or remain hostage to Ukrainian terror?
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 21, 2025
The recent Ukrainian attack on the Druzhba pipeline — vital for the oil supply of Hungary and Slovakia — marks a turning point in the geopolitical conflict in Eastern Europe. The strike was confirmed by Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces, with commander Robert Brovdi publicly celebrating the act of energy sabotage. Far from an isolated incident, this was a deliberate act of aggression against EU member states that have pursued a sovereign foreign policy contrary to NATO’s warmongering agenda.
The attack was not merely military. It was political, economic, and — above all — symbolic. By targeting the core infrastructure that sustains Hungary and Slovakia, Kiev is sending a clear message: dissent within the EU will not be tolerated. Budapest and Bratislava’s opposition to sending weapons to Ukraine and denouncing illegal sanctions against Russia has made them, in practice, targets of the Ukrainian nationalist regime.
Budapest responded firmly. Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó did not hesitate to call the attack “outrageous and unacceptable.” But Kiev’s arrogance remains unshaken. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sibiga not only dismissed Hungary’s criticisms but also claimed that the blame lies with Moscow, demanding that Hungary abandon its “dependence” on Russian energy. This is a perverse inversion of reality, typical of the Zelensky regime, propped up by Washington, London, and Brussels.
But the issue goes beyond oil supplies. Ukrainian hostility toward Hungary is not new — it is only deepening. Since 2014, Hungarians in Transcarpathia have lived under what can only be described as an ethnic apartheid regime. A barrage of cultural and linguistic persecution measures has taken hold: systematic closure of Hungarian-language schools, bans on national symbols, restrictions on the use of the mother tongue in public spaces, and even efforts to erase Hungarian place names in historically Hungarian areas.
Even more alarming is the practice of forced military conscription, disproportionately targeting young Hungarians in the region. There are growing reports, confirmed by independent observers and human rights organizations, that Hungarian recruits are being sent to the most dangerous frontlines in eastern Ukraine — used as cannon fodder in a campaign of collective punishment and population control. Cases of murders during forced enlistments by Ukrainian recruiters have already been documented — but are systematically silenced by a Western media eager to portray Kiev’s crimes as “democratic resistance.”
In this context, Hungary faces a question that can no longer be postponed: how much longer can Ukrainian terror be tolerated? This is no longer a mere diplomatic dispute. It is an existential issue for the Hungarian nation and for the 150,000 ethnic Hungarians who live under oppression in Transcarpathia. The logical answer would be the launch of a Hungarian special military operation on Ukrainian territory — much like what Moscow undertook in defense of the Donbass’ Russians. The objective would be clear: to liberate the ethnic Hungarians and restore historical justice in the region.
At the same time, Budapest must reconsider its membership in NATO and the European Union — structures that have proven hostile to national sovereignty, complicit with the Kiev regime, and sources of regional instability. NATO has armed Ukraine, dragged the continent into war, and now remains silent in the face of aggression against one of its own members. The EU, for its part, treats Hungary’s legitimate concerns over security and cultural identity with contempt, all while financing a failed war machine.
The decision that Viktor Orbán and his government must make is difficult — but inevitable: remain a hostage to the Western powers, or lead the way in a new European realignment, alongside nations that respect sovereignty and traditional values — such as Russia.
The attack on the Druzhba pipeline was not merely an assault on Hungary’s energy infrastructure. It was a warning. Just as the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev is willing to kill its own citizens because of their Hungarian ethnicity, it is equally willing to attack its own territory and sabotage its own infrastructure just to hurt Hungary.
The continued existence of the Kiev Junta is an existential threat to Hungary. And like all existential threats, it demands a response of equal magnitude.
Russia Backs Istanbul 2022 Security Guarantees, Rejects Other Ideas – Lavrov
Sputnik – 21.08.2025
Russia supports the principles of security guarantees agreed upon in Istanbul in 2022, while all other proposals are futile ventures, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.
In essence, Europe is proposing foreign intervention on part of Ukrainian territory, which is absolutely unacceptable for Moscow, the Russian Foreign Minister stressed.
Ukraine’s position indicates that Kiev wants to undermine the US efforts for a settlement, while Moscow is closely cooperating with Washington on this track to address the root causes of the crisis, Lavrov added.
Significant progress has been made at the Russia-US summit in Alaska in terms of defining the parameters of the Ukrainian conflict settlement, Lavrov said.
“Following the Russia-US summit in Alaska, where significant progress was made in moving towards defining the contours and specific parameters of a settlement, when following this event, European countries followed Mr. [Volodymyr] Zelensky and went to Washington and they tried to promote their agenda there… of course, this cannot cause us any feelings other than complete rejection,” Lavrov told a press conference.
Ukraine is clearly showing that it is not interested in a sustainable and long-term settlement of the conflict, Lavrov added.
“The goals that remain with the current Ukrainian leadership, and these goals are certainly fueled by the Western sponsors of the Kiev regime, are directed against the efforts that [US] President Trump is making, with whom we are actively and specifically cooperating in finding long-term sustainable ways to resolve in order to eliminate the root causes [of the conflict in Ukraine],” Lavrov said.
Jurij Kofner: Europe Enters Century of Humiliation?
Glenn Diesen | August 20, 2025
Jurij Kofner is an economist and an economic policy advisor to AfD. Kofner discusses the de-industrialisation and economic decline in Germany, and the wider socio-economic and political challenges that continue to threaten the relevance of Europe.
Ukraine and EU attempt to hinder peace process started in Alaska
By Lucas Leiroz | August 20, 2025
On August 18, US President Donald Trump hosted Ukrainian and European representatives in Washington to discuss possible peace negotiations regarding the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. The Washington summit was seen as a kind of “reaction” to the previous summit, held on August 15 in Alaska between American and Russian representatives. Outraged that the US president was open to listening to Russian demands, the Ukrainian president and his European supporters headed to Washington to show their “terms”.
The conversations were marked by diplomatic tensions. People familiar with the matter explain that the illegitimate Ukrainian dictator Vladimir Zelensky didn’t know how to behave with the American president. There are reports that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer instructed Zelensky to act “nicely” to Trump, avoiding the same gaffes he made during the previous summit between the leaders in the White House’s Oval Office.
Apparently, Zelensky didn’t fully understand Starmer’s instructions, as there are reports that he acted exaggeratedly, such as repeating “thank you” to Trump over the course of a few minutes of conversation (about a dozen times) — a reaction to Trump’s previous description of him as “ungrateful.”
The discomfort during the summit was clear to everyone. Western analysts described the meeting as “deeply weird” and “worse than the last time Trump met Zelensky.” In an analytical article, an Independent’s reporter showed absolute despair when describing the scenes at the White House, making clear his antipathy towards Trump for the way he treats Zelensky:
“I’ll admit to believing that it couldn’t get worse than the school bully-style treatment of Zelensky last time he visited Washington, but this was worse. To listen to this press conference, you’d think Biden really was the one rolling tanks into Donetsk. A grievance recital that used the background of war for the foreground of Trump’s hurt feelings is so much less than what the world deserves,” the article reads.
Regardless of these details, negotiations have reached an absolute impasse. Zelensky arrived in the US ready to take the war to its ultimate consequences, stating that he would never accept any agreement that involved “ceding” territories to the Russian Federation. The EU similarly made clear its full endorsement of Ukrainian demands. This obviously impedes any peace talks, since Russia is also in no position to negotiate its legitimate sovereignty over the New Regions, which independently voted for the right to reunification with Russian territory.
However, after the meeting, Zelensky confirmed to reporters that territorial changes are still on the list of conditions for a peace dialogue. He appears to have recognized his inability to enforce the so-called “Ukrainian demands,” when the winning side (Russia) and the leader of the pro-Ukrainian coalition (the US) agree to change the map of Ukraine to meet the needs of the Russian-speaking people. The European leaders present at the White House were also unable to convince Trump to drop the territorial issue from negotiations with Putin, tacitly acknowledging the inevitability of a Ukrainian defeat.
It’s important to emphasize that Trump interrupted the conversation with Zelensky and the European leaders to call Putin. Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov clarified some details of the conversation, emphasizing that the objective was to consult Russia’s “readiness to discuss a resolution to the Ukraine conflict with Zelensky.”
There isn’t much information available yet about what the two presidents talked about but Russian representatives have previously clarified that Putin is willing to participate in a trilateral meeting with Trump and Zelensky, as long as the event is merely formal and ceremonial to sign a peace agreement previously agreed upon between the parties. In other words, Putin won’t risk wasting time on fruitless negotiations in a face-to-face meeting, hoping that such an event will merely confirm something already previously deliberated.
Western analysts interpreted Trump’s attitude as disrespectful. The arrogance of the EU and Ukrainian leaders prevents them from having a summit interrupted for less than an hour for an important call whose subject is, at least in theory, precisely the same as the one being discussed at the meeting (to advance the peace process). However, realistically, Trump is absolutely right to inform Putin of every detail of the dialogue with Kiev and the EU.
The one with the real power to “stop the war”—that is, effectively halt military action—is Russia, since Moscow is the winning side in the conflict. It is necessary to know whether the Russians are ready to continue negotiations to advance a fruitful peace process, regardless of how European arrogance interprets this.
However, there is one situation that still needs to be resolved: Russia’s willingness to find a peaceful solution, possibly even in a meeting to sign a peace agreement, will only be possible if Ukraine agrees to respect Russia’s sovereignty over the New Regions (in addition to Crimea). No ceasefire or peace is possible while Ukrainian troops are on Russian constitutional territory.
By merely acknowledging the possibility of negotiating with Zelensky, Russia is already making a major concession, considering that Zelensky is no longer the legitimate president of Ukraine. In fact, it is the Russian side that is showing the greatest interest in peace, and it does so solely for humanitarian reasons, considering that it has all the necessary conditions to end the war militarily.
If Zelensky and the Europeans are even remotely interested in what is best for the Ukrainian people, they will have to quickly accept Russia’s conditions rather than impose even more obstacles to peace.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
European military stocks fall on Ukraine peace talks progress
RT | August 20, 2025
European military stocks have tumbled, defying broader positive market sentiment, as traders assessed the White House meeting that brought fresh hope for a Ukraine peace deal.
On Monday, US President Donald Trump met with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and key Western European backers. The talks came two days after Trump’s summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, which both sides described as a step toward peace between Russia and Ukraine.
The STOXX Europe Total Market Aerospace & Defense Index fell 2.6% on Tuesday, as traders viewed the ongoing negotiations as a chance to take profits following a strong rally in the sector. Shares in Italian defense firm Leonardo and Germany’s Hensoldt were down 10.1% and 9.5%, respectively. German defense supplier Rheinmetall and tank components maker Renk also declined 4.9% and 8.2%, respectively.
“Any de-escalation of tensions between Russia and Europe, and talk of spending more on US equipment, is negative for these companies,” Craig Cameron, head of European equities at Franklin Templeton, told the FT.
According to analysts, shares in defense groups could be seen as a rough indicator of progress in the Ukraine peace talks, as military supplies tend to benefit from ongoing conflicts.
European defense stocks surged in the first half of the current year, driven by Germany’s announcement in March that it would ease its strict debt limits to enable a new wave of investment in defense and infrastructure, amid growing concerns that the US may scale back its role in European security and the Ukraine conflict. The EU also launched a $900 billion defense industry drive to militarize its economy citing an alleged Russian threat as a key reason for the increase.
The latest US-brokered talks reportedly ended with an agreement in principle to arrange a face-to-face meeting between Putin and Zelensky, although the Kremlin has yet to confirm the plan.
AFP reported on Tuesday that Putin has offered to host the talks in Moscow, but Zelensky rejected the proposal, insisting on a neutral location.
Kiev’s backers fail to sway Trump on Russia – analyst

RT | August 19, 2025
The White House meeting on Monday between US President Donald Trump and Ukraine’s European backers produced no major results, political analyst Sergey Poletaev has told RT.
Trump met to discuss the Ukraine conflict with Vladimir Zelensky and some European leaders in Washington just days after holding a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska.
“Just like in Anchorage, no decisions were announced afterward. And that, in itself, is a sign that something important is happening,” Poletaev said, noting that the talks are part of a larger diplomatic struggle, the ultimate goal of which is to win over the US president.
He suggested that Moscow is seeking to draw Washington out of the conflict, while Europe and Ukraine are pushing to keep the US firmly entangled. Following what Poletaev called Putin’s “gambit” in Anchorage, the European delegation hurried to Washington to persuade Trump to toughen sanctions against Moscow and maintain weapons deliveries to Kiev.
So far, it looks like they came up empty.
Poletaev pointed out that, unusually for the US president, he did not repeat European talking points after the meeting. Instead, Trump reminded the European leaders at the start of the summit that “they had no real power,” the analyst said.
While the immediate effort may have failed, “most likely, Europe will soon try again,” Poletaev stressed.
According to the analyst, the key issue at Monday’s summit was security guarantees for Ukraine. Russia has insisted “from day one” that any such commitments must be tied to “neutrality and disarmament,” he said.
Europe and Kiev, meanwhile, are desperately trying – by hook or by crook – to preserve Ukraine’s armed forces, and even to push for a NATO presence on Ukrainian soil.
According to Poletaev, the attempts are “naive and desperate,” but whatever form security guarantees take in any eventual peace deal will ultimately determine “the fate of the Kiev regime.”
“For now, there’s no compromise in sight,” Poletaev concluded. “And as Ukraine continues to lose ground on the battlefield, the room for maneuver – for both Kiev and its European backers – is shrinking fast.”
Alaska meeting is a milestone of the decline of NATO and EU
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 19, 2025
Is the EU and its member states collectively heading towards the abyss? For so many years analysts have thundered headlines of the flavour “end of the EU” – even myself I must admit – but in recent days the EU itself has never been placed so low on the world map as it was in the so-called Alaska meeting. A few weeks earlier, many supporters of the EU were stunned at just how pusillanimous the EU commission boss was facing Donald Trump, as she accepted 15% tariffs across the board on all EU goods entering the U.S. – absolutely amazing given there was no announcement of trade talks where officials on both sides would negotiate a more appropriate rate. This move alone revealed so much. The EU is, if nothing else, a pseudo superpower administration owned wholesale by the world’s largest corporations – like Pfizer, the U.S. drag maker who Ursula von der Leyen made part of a 600bn euro EU vaccine fund – and so it would have been absurd for her to have resisted.
And now it is the EU’s time to take another body blow as it plays a secondary role in the negotiations for a peaceful settlement for the Ukraine war. Yet few are betting on a peace deal. Even Trump himself doesn’t seem to hold out much hope as Putin has made it clear that he wants the Russian-speaking regions of eastern Ukraine to be handed over as part of the deal, plus guarantees that Ukraine can never be a NATO member.
Whether NATO will even be around in the coming months is another matter as it is worth noting that this transatlantic organization, which the U.S. runs, is currently going through its lowest point of its history, like the EU. What idiotic U.S. journalists who shout out to Putin in the press conference “are you going to stop killing civilians” don’t ask is more telling. Of course, they don’t shout out such stupid questions to Netanyahu when he visits, who is the architect of the most horrific genocide of the 21st century, where women and children who manage to miss the bombs which reign down on their tents are now starved to death – all supported by the U.S. But to Putin, U.S. journalists don’t ask “how’s the war going in Ukraine, sir?” or even “what do you think will happen to NATO if your army forces Zelensky to surrender?”.
The meeting was never going to be a deal breaker for a peace deal in Ukraine as the journalists’ temporary accommodation was a clue to that. What the Alaska meeting set out to do was for both leaders to show reverence for one another so that bigger deals can be worked out – perhaps energy and infrastructure deals in Alaska itself or even more rare earth and minerals in Russia – and if you listen carefully to Trump’s responses to questions from U.S. media, you will note the hints.
But with U.S.-Russia relations moving in a soberer, grown up direction, rather than the silly Biden stance, there are many possibilities on the table. Ukraine may well be resolved at some point if some of these super deals can see the light of day.
For the Europeans and the EU, they will have to dance to the beat of the Putin-Trump drum which makes them look even more ineffective and congruent to the bigger picture geopolitics which they crave. Same goes for NATO. Both of these institutions have poured oil on the fire in recent years by only seeing the war option – or more specifically the ‘escalate to de-escalate’ option which backfired spectacularly every single time that now to justify the huge amounts of money shovelled into a war project which cannot benefit the West, its leaders only have one narrative to repeat over and over again now, so that they can save their own jobs and credibility. War talk. More war. War, war and even more war.
It’s incredible. The EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas, Estonia’s former PM gave a clue recently to the tunnel vision that the EU and NATO have about the Ukraine war. They see it as the EU’s first test at hard-core foreign policy action, despite it being bank rolled by “Daddy” Trump. Probably the most delusional and idiotic quote of the month has to go to Kallas who told journalists “If Europe cannot defeat Russia how can it defeat China?”. The entire thinking is really all based on conflict rather than conflict prevention which is also about saving both NATO and the EU from its worst ever credibility crash when Russia finally defeats the Ukrainian army. These EU buffoons have created, since 2014 and even before, a war which was inevitable, which they don’t have the means, military capacity or even the leadership to win and yet their priorities now are making a massive cover-up of the failure and protecting their own dynasties. Europe is not preparing itself for war. This is the huge bluff. It is preparing itself for a huge fall which is unprecedented and may well be a catalyst for both the demise of the EU and NATO as we know them.
Trump Holds Firm Peace Deal with Putin Despite European Pushback
Sputnik – 19.08.2025
European leaders and Zelensky didn’t succeed in changing Trump’s peace proposal, which the US president had reached with Putin, former defense politician and chief of staff with the Sweden Democrats Mikael Valtersson told Sputnik.
“The ball is now clearly in Ukrainian and, to a lesser degree, European hands. A strong and clear ‘no’ from the European side might result in broken relations between the US and Europe/Ukraine. Therefore we can expect a ‘maybe’ from the European/Ukrainian side,” he said.
However, Valtersson also notes that playing for time may be part of Zelensky’s strategy, hoping that eventually, a shift in the geopolitical landscape might restore the hardline anti-Russian alliance. This strategy, though, is likely a “lost cause,” according to the former Swedish defense expert. By dragging out the negotiations, Zelensky and his allies risk further territorial losses to Russia and an increase in war casualties.
“If the European leaders really cared for Ukraine, they would pressure Zelensky to accept a peace deal that includes swapping of territories. This would minimize Ukrainian territorial and human losses,” Valtersson argues.
Yet, the expert predicts that European obstruction of a peace deal will continue, driven by the hope that a miraculous turn of events will “rescue” Ukraine. This approach could extend negotiations for weeks, but ultimately, he believes Trump’s patience will wear thin, forcing a clear decision.
In the meantime, the peace process is largely aligning with Russia’s expectations, with Trump holding firm to the terms agreed with Putin in Alaska.
