In his support for America’s independence from Britain, the Scottish philosopher David Hume said he was “an American in principle” and wished that Americans would be left “to manage their own affairs as they see fit.” In a strange twist of fate, Americans have forgotten this principle while Europeans have embraced it. In Ukraine today, Europeans insist on strengthening Ukraine’s independence and strongly support it, while Americans see no harm in Ukraine’s independence being constrained if the price is peace with Russia.
On the occasion of the 35th anniversary of Ukraine’s independence from Russia, the presence of European leaders and the absence of senior American officials was striking. Yet Europeans were united in viewing the war in Ukraine as their war, and in recognizing that Ukrainians, as Britain’s prime minister put it, are Europe’s first line of defense. More importantly, Britain openly agreed, following France, to transfer the technological expertise needed for Ukraine to manufacture long-range missiles. This was followed by the delivery to Ukraine of a trove of intelligence, imagery, and information on the movements and equipment of Russian forces, to be used by British artificial intelligence companies in areas including early defense, preparation to thwart acts of sabotage, detection of espionage, and protection of critical infrastructure in Britain.
Europe is no longer afraid of the Russian bear. It is no longer reluctant to confront it, nor does it listen as closely to Washington’s positions on the war as it once did. Europe has reached its own conclusion: the war being fought on Ukrainian soil is its war, and losing it would mean returning Europe to the conditions that existed before the Second World War.
This war, which Putin declared to be a special operation and expected to complete within weeks or months, has now entered its fourth year, and the front lines have not changed. The more significant change, however, is that Ukraine has become stronger, more experienced, and more capable of military industrial production. It has reached a point where even Trump changed his position and expressed admiration for the Ukrainians’ defiance of Russia.
Ukraine today appears to have the strongest army in Europe and the greatest combat experience, backed by European leaders who provide it with technological expertise, money, and political, diplomatic, and economic support.
With this new reality taking shape, Putin understands that after four years he is fighting a war entirely different from the one he began, for three reasons. First, Ukraine has held out and refused to concede. Second, Europe has effectively entered the confrontation with him and has managed to maneuver Trump into a neutral position as the lesser of two evils. Third, he has come to recognize the cost of the war to such an extent that Russian Deputy Minister of Economic Development Klepach expressed concern about a social revolution resembling the 1917 Revolution that overthrew the Tsar.
It is no surprise that Putin and his ministers are now threatening Europe alone and warning its leaders, while avoiding attacks on America. They understand that the real military weight in Ukraine has shifted to Europe and is no longer in Washington.
This qualitative transformation has been accompanied by Moscow’s loss of influence in the Middle East following the collapse of the Assad regime, as well as in Venezuela and Africa, along with the loss of its narrative of resistance to American hegemony and a unipolar world order. Europe, despite its contradictions, moved quickly to fill the vacuum wherever Moscow faced strategic difficulties. It rapidly opened channels with the government of al-Sharaa and welcomed its agreement with Moscow to end the Russian presence in the Mediterranean, a vital area for European security.
Two events awakened Europe: the war in Ukraine and Trump’s threats.
At the beginning of the war in Ukraine, Europe hoped it would end quickly, even at Ukraine’s expense. But the Ukrainians’ resilience, Britain’s firm position toward Russia, and President Biden’s swift support for Zelenskyy gradually pushed Europe toward supporting the Ukrainian people. Europe has since become a direct party to the conflict by every measure.
Trump’s hostility toward Europe, his mockery of its leaders, his imposition of tariffs on it, his threats to withdraw from NATO, and his demand that European territory be annexed to the United States, namely Greenland, alerted Europe to the fact that it was alone in a changing world and that its security was at risk. Europe therefore had no choice but to hold together and confront these challenges as a human, economic, and military bloc capable of balancing the United States and China, and capable of deterring Putin’s military moves through similar and warning actions.
This is what the British and Norwegians did when they found nuclear submarines above sensitive communications cables in the North Sea. They also acted when they intercepted shadow tankers transporting Russian oil. They did not heed Russia’s deployment of Russian frigates to protect them, but instead searched Russian shadow tankers in the North Sea. More significantly, advanced British drones acquired by Ukraine have begun striking deep inside Russian territory, without regard for Russian retaliation or threats.
President Putin spent decades preparing to make Russia a great power. On his way to achieving that goal, he launched the war in Ukraine, which has exhausted his economy and army and brought Russia’s rise as a great power to a halt.
President Putin is now in a predicament. He is neither capable of stopping the war nor in a position strong enough to continue it.
