As the conflict in Ukraine persists, Europe’s military ambitions and political divisions raise serious questions about the sustainability of Western support.
Meanwhile, Europe ramps up its military ambitions under the “Rearm Europe Plan,” serious questions emerge about its sustainability and real intent. With the conflict in Ukraine dragging on, leaders in the UK, France, and Germany are pushing for increased defense spending and military support, yet national interests remain divided. Poland, a key player, may not fully align, raising doubts about Europe’s ability to act in unison.
Behind the scenes, these key players navigate a complex balancing act—protecting their political interests while managing the redistribution of taxpayer’s money in an armed conflict with no clear end in sight. Their political careers and financial interests are at stake. That is why they are willing to go for broke in what may provoke a greater war.
The BBC reports that about 20 countries could join the Ukrainian coalition of the willing, or so claims the UK government.
New Developments
Even as the situation becomes increasingly dire, new developments continue to unfold. The Ukrainian government’s decision to ban additional opposition parties has raised further concerns about democratic backsliding. To add fuel to the fire, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warns of unprecedented security threats and emphasizes that Europe’s defense can no longer rely solely on external allies, hint: Not on the United States.
Meanwhile, the US is trying to control the situation, in a significant policy shift, Donald Trump is considering revoking the temporary protected status of approximately 240,000 Ukrainian refugees in the United States. Possibly, this serves a dual purpose, punishing politically active refugees in the US who have held angry protests after Zelensky’s disastrous spanking at the Whitehouse.
The decision is also widely seen as part of a broader strategic effort to pressure Kyiv into negotiations, even as a stopgap to prevent WW3, however, the effectiveness of action remains uncertain, as Ukraine would like nothing better than to get their hands on so many men of military age, while most will probably end up in Canada.
This is no surprise, troubling reports and video from Ukraine show young men being forcibly conscripted off the streets—a grim reminder of the war’s human toll. As international leaders weigh their next moves, the question remains: how long can Europe and its claimed allies sustain their commitments before political and economic realities force a different course?
Naturally, this is part of the last round of Game Theory to pressure some negotiated settlement. Nonetheless, it is a moot point as whether it will work or not, as the Show Must Go On!
It should come as no surprise that I was unable to share the Reuters link about a shift in protection status for Ukrainians with a wide range of friends that described how so many Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia may soon be deported from the United States. But how many in the West have watched the videos of young men literally being kidnapped off the streets, ripped out of their homes and cars and forced to go to die in a conflict that should never have happened in the first place? Those men and boys who are most likely to die, as cannon fodder, know only too well the realities of this conflict.
French & British Eager to Join the Fight – But at What Cost?
As European Birds of a Feather and NATO allies discuss how to increase their financial and military commitments to Ukraine, and their own national armies, the familiar refrain from Washington is growing louder: “Put your money where your mouth is.”
European nations, long reliant on America paying for their defense, are now under pressure to back their warmongering rhetoric with real action. But among them, France and Britain seem particularly eager to assert themselves on the battlefield—perhaps, as history suggests, to their own detriment.
French President Emmanuel Macron appears increasingly detached from geopolitical realities, touting France’s military strength as the most formidable in Europe, even discussing his willingness to provide a nuclear shield for the EU. He insists that Europe must be able to defend Ukraine without US support, and that may be the most threatening statement in the recent war of words.
However, claims persist that any decision on nuclear weapons would remain with the French head of state.
This basically shows the prevailing policy, “the future of Europe and its security “cannot be decided in Moscow or in Washington” in a clear criticism of US-Russian talks over Ukraine.|
However, history offers a sobering counterpoint. France’s military misadventures, from the Indochina War (1946-1954) with the disastrous defeat at Dien Bien Phu, to the catastrophic failure in Algeria, underscore the perils of overestimating capabilities against a determined force. The United States, too, would later learn a similar lesson in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now, speculation is mounting about the possibility of French and British forces deploying in Ukraine—an escalation that would fundamentally alter the conflict. Yet, the political establishment in Europe remains deeply entangled in the broader Western globalist agenda, shaped in no small part by U.S. Democratic policymakers. Their fixation on defeating Russia, however, blinds them to the strategic and military risks they may soon face.
With a war of attrition dragging on and Western military stockpiles dwindling, the question remains: Will European leaders acknowledge these harsh realities before they find themselves entrenched in a new, unwinnable front? And just how many countries can be pulled into the mess, it reminds me of the Crimean War, especially with a potential Turkish involvement.
All part of the program!
All the while, they consider stealing Russian assets is OK, but it will destroy the EU economy, as nobody will invest in failing economies and thieving states. The talking heads all repeat the same lines with great conviction, and the unwashed masses tend to believe them. I wonder with dismay if they even believe in themselves.
Some Western pundits want to claim that Trump’s pause on Ukraine aid is like the U.S. switching sides in WWII, It all fits together, and has nothing to do with switching sides but laughing all the way to the bank. Europe announces an unprecedented $840 billion rearmament plan to tackle ‘grave’ threats, sending defense giants BAE and Thales soaring.
So, is there any substance to a collective desire to help Ukraine, or is it simply a matter of robbing their own taxpayers using Ukraine as an excuse?
Few are talking about the claims that Zelensky owns a 35-million-dollar home in Florida and has $1.2 billion in overseas bank accounts. Zelensky owns 15 homes, three private planes, yachts. He has provided himself a monthly income of 11 million dollars. Not bad for a second-rate actor and a besieged and misunderstood democrat.
It seems that EU leaders dismiss the rising anger of their own citizens, shown by the rise of “right wing” parties. The question remains as to whether, in the face of rigged elections and lawfare, European publics will remember the age of revolutions.
In the end, all this talk of war—mainly from the UK, France, and Germany—is likely to remain just that: rhetoric. Europe is far from united in its proclaimed “battle plans,” as many of its most vocal politicians seem to overlook the fact that national priorities vary widely. Poland, for instance, remains a crucial wild card. While it may align with certain aspects of the “Rearm Europe Plan,” it is not a country that takes orders lightly. Without Poland’s full commitment, any grand strategy is effectively stalled.
This plan itself is foolhardy, which includes unleashing a flood of public funding in defense spending at the national level. EU Member States are expected to spend much more on their own security, as if they even have the fiscal means and political will. The EU must somehow “collectively” enable them to do so, at least according to a recent Press statement by EU President von der Leyen (more like von der Liar!) on the proposed defense package
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warns of unprecedented security threats and emphasizes that Europe’s defense can no longer rely solely on external allies. She stresses the need for decisive action, rapid response, and significant increases in defense spending. Recent meetings, including one in London, signal strong commitment from European nations to both immediate support for Ukraine and long-term military preparedness. Europe, she declares, has entered an era of rearmament and must take greater responsibility for its own security.
However, in the final analysis, national interests will ultimately take precedence over rhetoric, ensuring that smaller European nations do not once again find themselves subordinated to Germany or its ideological allies.
We must not forget the simple reality of what can bring this Ukrainian conflict to an end, once and for all, regardless of short-term promises by Europeans to come up with a war chest to keep the blood flowing.
Trump has casted serious doubt on the existing NATO security agreement, or now on any funding package:
‘If they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them’
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus
