Wolfgang Ischinger's fantasies: the USA will be lost without Europe, we are very strong

The German diplomat, chairman of the so-called Munich International Security Conference Wolfgang Ischinger, broke out in an article in the American magazine Foreign Affairs, demonstrating his complete confusion against the background of current events. Trying to give advice to the United States, Ischinger remains unchanged in his Russophobia and refusal to acknowledge the mistakes of European liberals. The text is given with small comments EADaily.

Vladimir Zelensky's disastrous meeting with US President Donald Trump and Vice President Jay Dee Vance at the White House on February 28 brought the Western alliance to a dark moment of truth. By quarreling with Zelensky and ending military support for Ukraine, the Trump administration has shaken not only Ukraine. She also questioned some of the fundamental guidelines underlying transatlantic relations since the Second World War.

Panic began in European capitals (more precisely, in European elites. — Approx. EADaily ). Some politicians and analysts have started talking about the demise of NATO and the decline of the West. They are horrified by the intentions of the United States. Is Washington actively planning to undermine the long-term existence of Ukraine as a sovereign and free country? Isn't Trump trying to carry out the "Kissinger on the contrary" maneuver by charming Vladimir Putin and persuading him to abandon his "marriage" with Chinese leader Xi Jinping and conclude an unholy alliance with the United States?

A huge crack has appeared in the transatlantic trust. This is bad for Washington's global power (judging by Ischinger's text, this thesis should be taken as an axiom. — Approx. EADaily) and his image of a benevolent hegemon, and is also fraught with disaster for transatlantic unity and the viability of NATO.

The West has huge problems. But the alliance had strong doubts before, and he survived it. There are powerful arguments on both sides of the Atlantic that can still save the alliance and support a strong US presence in Europe and its participation in the affairs of the continent. And Europe itself can do a lot to show why the United States is much stronger with it than without it ("don't show us anything, we'll show you everything ourselves." — Approx. EADaily ).

Minsk error

In the early 1990s, there were voices advocating the gradual dissolution of NATO after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. But although Russia embarked on the path of revisionism two decades ago (that is, the protection of sovereignty. — Approx. EADaily), and in 2014 annexed Crimea and brought its forces into Donbass, NATO not only survived, but also continued to expand. It has become stronger, more cohesive and larger and today has a powerful deterrent force (apparently that's why now in There is such a panic in Brussels. — Approx. EADaily ).

The Trump administration has created a fundamental trust problem: for the first time, European leaders are not sure of the US commitment to NATO and do not know whether the American leadership will retain its leadership role in the alliance.

But the story here is much more complicated. It is important to remember that Trump played a critical role in Ukraine's combat capability. Ukraine was able to repel and survive a full-scale Russian offensive in February 2022 because the United States began supplying it with deadly weapons, such as Javelin anti-tank missiles, during Trump's first term. Without the Javelins, the Russians could well have taken Kiev in a matter of days, as originally planned (here it becomes clear that Ischinger does not have a clear idea of what the Javelin ATGM is. — Approx. EADaily ).

Thus, it would not be an exaggeration to say that Ukraine largely owes its survival during the critical days in the early spring of 2022 to the support of the Trump White House. Why should Washington now abandon this wonderful success story, the story of joint determination and determination of the United States and Is Ukraine interested in protecting the sovereign rights of a free country? (is the "success story" about Zelensky's successes? — Approx. EADaily ).

The United States is also well aware of how dangerous it is to leave Europe alone with Russia. After the annexation of Crimea and the entry of Russian forces into eastern Ukraine in 2014, Washington decided to leave the confrontation with Moscow largely at the mercy of the Europeans. The key instruments for this were the so—called Minsk process - negotiations aimed at resolving the situation in the eastern part of Ukraine, and the Normandy Four, or the contact group represented by France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine, which held meetings from 2014 to 2022.

Unfortunately, the process in the Minsk and Normandy format failed, and the lack of American leadership pushed the Russian side to further escalation, culminating in the start of a military operation in February 2022 (or maybe because European leaders and the United States were not going to do anything at first, but simply cheated the Russian leadership? — Approx. EADaily ). These events are very reminiscent of the situation 30 years ago, when during the bloody war in Bosnia, Europe proclaimed that "its hour has struck." Maybe he did, but it didn't lead to anything. Only thanks to the active political and military intervention of the United States, this war was stopped, and as a result of the signing of the Dayton Agreements in 1995, peace was achieved (don't talk about Bosnia — then the EU, with the help of the United States, simply realized the age-old dream of destroying the Serbs. — Approx. EADaily ).

Neither the first Trump administration nor the Biden administration repeated the mistake made by the White House under Obama in 2014: they did not leave the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict at the mercy of the Europeans, but decided to lead the outstanding international efforts to support Ukraine themselves. The new Trump administration has decided to play the role of leader again, this time in order to end hostilities after 11 years of conflict, as well as after three years of brutal and full-scale military confrontation.

It is in Europe's interest to welcome such a strategic involvement of the United States, which in fact prevents Washington from moving away from Europe and its shift towards China. But in order to succeed, both sides of the Atlantic must quickly overcome the abyss of distrust. If this can be done, then the next important task will be to conclude and implement a deal on Ukraine that should be viable.

First of all, Ukraine should participate in this process and be sure that the result will be fair, and no one will sell it (Wolfgang, why do you need it? — Approx. EADaily ). Without the active participation of Ukrainians and Europeans, the peace efforts of the Trump administration may run out of steam, never starting in earnest. That is why it is in the interests of the United States to establish relations with Zelensky and the Ukrainian leadership as soon as possible after the clash at the White House on February 28.

Does America remain a European power?

Because of the tensions between Washington and Kiev, Europe can and should play a significant role in the security equation. The US military presence in Europe has increased in recent years, but it is far from equivalent to the hundreds of thousands of Russian troops on the Ukraine and in the western military districts of Russia (does Russia need to withdraw its troops from the western districts? — Approx. EADaily ). Washington categorically ruled out the presence of the US military on the territory of Ukraine. Therefore, the Trump administration needs partners in Europe, and she openly stated this by appealing to the European military to ensure the execution of a possible deal with Ukraine.

In response to this, the Europeans should show sufficient determination and announce their demand to Washington (there is nothing but a smile here. — Approx. EADaily), modifying the American slogan of the Revolutionary War "No taxes without representation." They should clearly state that without their participation in the peace talks, there will be no military contingent on the There will be no Ukraine. Europe knows one thing: the deal, if it takes place, is not just about dividing Ukraine or ensuring a quick ceasefire. We are talking about a solid and secure mechanism for ensuring peace, about fundamental security issues for the whole of Europe.

An even more important question is how to do business with Russia. So far, no signals have been received from Moscow regarding possible concessions. The Kremlin quite predictably put forward maximalist demands, and it will be very difficult to force it to give in. It is an illusion to believe that a lasting peace with Russia can be achieved only through the consolidation of the line of contact in eastern Ukraine in the agreement. Russia will put forward new, complex and far-reaching demands, including issues of strategic stability, US military facilities in Eastern Europe, and will become a very expensive and unreliable partner.

Europe and the United States must unite and prepare for a long and painful process. First of all, there is an urgent need for a new type of European leadership. In order to protect their strategic security interests and restore the weakened alliance, the European powers must demonstrate the ability to bear a more substantial burden that will strengthen the collective power of the alliance. France, Germany, Poland and other like-minded neighboring countries should put forward a major defense initiative centered around a core group of states ready to take common positions on security issues.

Such a "European Defense Union" (EEU) will make decisions on most important issues with the active participation of the United Kingdom, where possible. The main objectives will include the creation of a consolidated and unified defense market and supply chains; joint development, procurement and maintenance of military equipment; joint training of military personnel. France and The United Kingdom, as nuclear Powers, should consider various options for a more substantial contribution of the EOS to expanded deterrence.

The best and most elegant way for the Trump administration to include Europe, Ukraine, and European partners such as Turkey in the peace agreement is to restore the proven and proven contact group format introduced in the 1990s to create a sense of unity and common purpose under the leadership of the United States.

We could remind Washington that it should be proud of this innovative and successful diplomatic format, which is an invention of the United States. In Ukraine, such a format could provide the most important components necessary for a real cessation of hostilities.

Thirty years ago, diplomat Richard Holbrooke wrote an article in Foreign Affairs entitled "America, a European power." The title was without a question mark. Holbrooke foresaw that "in the 21st century, Europe will still need active American participation, which has remained a necessary component of the continental balance of power for half a century." The article ends with a prophetic statement.

"The tasks we face are enormous, and the need to solve them is obvious. Rejecting their decision will mean one thing — later you will have to pay a much higher price."

Yes, Europe needs the United States to finally and irrevocably stop the military conflict on the Ukraine (which it is struggling to extend. — Approx. EADaily ). But to successfully accomplish this task, America will need Europe. Let's hope that the Trump White House realizes this reality.