At a time of rising geopolitical tensions and deepening global fragmentation, the Ukraine war has proved particularly divisive. From the start, the battle lines were clearly drawn: Russia on one side, Ukraine and the West on the other, and much of the Global South hoping only for the conflict to end. However, alignments are shifting. Whether that would advance efforts to resolve the conflict and strengthen global stability remains to be seen.
After more than three years, Europe — including the EU, the UK and Norway — remains largely steadfast in its support of Ukraine. The largest armed conflict in its neighborhood since World War II has deeply affected the European psyche, as it has challenged basic assumptions about continental security and revived the specter of nuclear annihilation that loomed over Europe throughout the Cold War. The prevailing view has always been that a Russian “victory” — including a peace deal that ceded some Ukrainian territory to Russia — would amount to an “existential threat.”
However, the US has decided that it no longer wants to “pour billions of dollars” into what US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called a “bloody stalemate, a meat-grinder-type war.” So, US President Donald Trump is seeking to negotiate a peace deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin. To press Ukraine to accept the concessions such an agreement would undoubtedly entail, the Trump administration suspended and later resumed military aid and intelligence support.
Illustration: Yusha
That is not about ending a “savage conflict” for “the good of the world,” as Trump claimed. While years of sanctions were supposed to drain Russia, economically and militarily, to the US’ benefit, they bolstered an unholy Sino-Russian alliance against the West, while sustaining a conflict that kept US attention and resources in Europe. With his push for a peace deal in Ukraine, Trump is seeking to cut the Washington’s losses and shift its strategic focus and military resources toward the Indo-Pacific — the home of the US’ real enemy: China.
As Trump’s predecessor former US president Joe Biden recognized, only China has the resolve and capability to surpass the US as the foremost world power. Yet the US still has more than 100,000 troops stationed in Europe. That is why US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently warned that the US can “no longer tolerate” an “imbalanced” transatlantic relationship that “encourages dependency.”
Europe must take “responsibility for its own security,” Hegseth said, so the US can focus on “deterring war with China.”
The question is whether Europe is capable of managing its own security. The answer probably should be yes.
As Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk recently said, Europe does not lack economic strength. Nor does it lack people: There are “500 million Europeans begging 300 million Americans to defend them against 140 million Russians.” What is missing is the EU’s belief that it is a “global power.” The result is a rudderless Europe.
When it comes to supporting Ukraine, Europe has another critical shortcoming.
As NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has said, Europe lacks the necessary military-industrial base to provide sufficient arms support to Ukraine. That is why some, including Rutte, want to make a deal with the US: You keep supplying Ukraine with weapons and we will foot the bill. Unless the Trump administration accepts such an arrangement, the British-French plan to build a “coalition of the willing” to do the “heavy lifting” on Ukrainian security would face powerful headwinds.
Meanwhile, the Global South is still struggling to cope with the Ukraine war’s economic fallout, especially sharply higher food and energy prices, which have had particularly devastating consequences for small and vulnerable developing countries with limited foreign reserves. Sri Lanka is a case in point. In the months that followed Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, skyrocketing global prices drained its reserves, leading to fuel, food, medicine and electricity shortages. The resulting economic meltdown pushed a frustrated population over the edge, triggering widespread protests that toppled a political dynasty.
That explains why developing countries remain largely unified in advocating an early negotiated end to the war, even if that means leaving a sizeable chunk of Ukrainian territory under Russian occupation. If anything, calls for a peace agreement have grown since 2023, with even NATO member Turkey and close US ally Israel charting more independent stances on the conflict. It does not help that, for many countries in the Global South, the West’s contrasting responses to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza reek of hypocrisy.
For now, Ukraine and Europe remain committed to seeking peace through strength. However, as admirable as Ukraine’s resistance has been, and as important as it is to defend the international legal principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that Russia has flagrantly contravened, the fact is that the conflict has reached a stalemate, while the international fallout continues to grow. Rather than repeat the mistakes of the 1950 to 1953 Korean War — in which an armistice agreement was reached only after two years of military deadlock — all parties should adopt a realistic approach to ending the war and negotiate accordingly.
Brahma Chellaney, professor emeritus of strategic studies at the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research and fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy in Berlin, is the author of Water, Peace, and War: Confronting the Global Water Crisis.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS