Europe wants a seat at the peace table, but what exactly does it intend to bring to the table — peace or another war?
Riga: The Road to Peace Runs Through Europe’s War Rooms
This is the third instalment in a series of back-to-back articles examining the war drums beating across Europe: Poland’s preparations for a potential confrontation with Russia, the growing militarization of the continent and beating of war drums on the Russian border (Kaliningrad), and what increasingly looks like the prospect of a German gold heist in broad daylight—this time involving someone else’s gold, courtesy of Europe’s most unrepentant historical looters.
Make no mistake: the so-called Coalition of the Willing in Europe has become one of the principal obstacles to ending the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Rather than creating political space for a negotiated settlement, its members appear determined to keep the conflict alive, repeatedly attempting to insert themselves into peace negotiations, piling up loans to finance yet more weapons for Ukraine, and effectively underwriting an open-ended war with no credible endgame. Meanwhile, war tourism to Kyiv has become the latest European political fashion. Apparently, nothing says commitment to peace quite like another photo opportunity in an ongoing war zone!
Diplomatic Manoeuvring!
Against this backdrop, another diplomatic manoeuvre is taking shape. Jared Kushner is preparing to meet with EU representatives. Whether this signals a genuine opening for diplomacy or yet another round of political theatre remains to be seen. But the question hanging over Europe is increasingly unavoidable: Who actually wants this war in Ukraine to end, and who has become too politically, financially, and strategically invested in keeping it simmering to a slow burn?
The significance of these developments goes considerably beyond Jared Kushner meeting European representatives.
Washington is attempting to shape the terms of a possible settlement of the Ukraine war, while simultaneously trying to bring Europe into a negotiating process in which they have so far struggled to secure a decisive seat at the table.
The central question is not simply whether Russia and Ukraine can agree to stop fighting. It is who will determine the future security architecture of Europe, what happens to Ukraine, and how much influence Washington, Moscow and the European capitals will exercise over the eventual settlement.
Europeans want to be in the middle
There is also a potentially important diplomatic complication: Russia wants to negotiate directly with Washington and Kyiv, while European governments insist that they cannot be expected to accept security arrangements affecting their continent without having a meaningful role in shaping them. They want to be right in the middle of the process, and the motivation is not difficult to understand, particularly given the history of Britain’s Boris Johnson and the Istanbul peace negotiations of March–April 2022.
At the time, Moscow and Kyiv had developed a framework for a possible settlement involving Ukrainian neutrality and international security guarantees. It was never finalized or signed, but negotiations were substantive.
Then, on April 9, Johnson arrived in Kyiv, urging Zelensky not to reach an agreement with Moscow and instead to continue fighting, with the backing of the collective West. Ukrainian negotiator David Arakhamia subsequently recounted Johnson’s intervention. Whether or not Johnson alone determined the outcome, the diplomatic opportunity collapsed, and the war continued.
It is ironic, to say the least, that European governments now demand a central role in negotiations, given that it was Western intervention, political arm-twisting, and dirty behind-the-scenes manoeuvrings that helped prevent Ukraine from pursuing a genuine diplomatic opening—one that might have secured a lasting peace years ago, it can also be argued that, along with the US, the EU was responsible for the war in the first place with its support for the ultranationalist revolution on the Maidan in 2014.
The Chutzpah Coalition: Europe’s War for Peace
And now, of all things, Europe has the chutzpah to demand a seat at the table to secure peace—or, perhaps more accurately, to ensure that no settlement is reached without its blessing, or over its objections, or even at all. The irony is almost too rich. One is reminded of Mark Twain’s The War Prayer, accompanied by the familiar chorus of Onward, Christian Soldiers. Apparently, the road to peace must first pass through the war rooms of those who helped make peace impossible!
We now know better
We now know better, and that makes us question the real motivations of so-called peacemakers. One thing is certain, in spite of the proclamations of the Institute for the Study of War, Russia is winning, incrementally, call it a war of attrition or whatever you want. The result is clear: Kiev and its Western supporters, fans and corporate interests are looking for the exit ramp, and trying to save face at the same time—and, given the rapidly deteriorating position of the Ukrainians, that may be too much to even hope for.
Such goals are going to be very hard to accomplish in tandem, especially as the financial interests in continuing the war are increasingly exposed. It is clear, in the final analysis, that this war had very little to do with Ukraine.
It had more to do with blatant NATO expansion, arms sales, business deals, and personal greed. All the claims about territorial integrity, and all the other talking points justifying a war by the Maidan Junta against its own citizens, religious institutions, and anyone who dared question the true motivations of the regime, including the most vulnerable citizens of all, especially young people who wanted no part in this war, yet were sent to die in it, their lives cut short, and their futures sacrificed on the altar of other people’s ambitions and greed.
Europe Out in the Cold
It has become increasingly obvious that the EU and US had been hoping for a Russian collapse, one in which they could break the Russian Federation up into smaller, bite sized parts, and loot these rump republics of their resources.
Now, instead, the EU faces a disaster of ever-increasing financial and military demands from its “New Churchill” Zelensky, a collapse in its own industrial capacity, and ever-increasing energy costs.
It is obvious that the Ukrainian tail is now wagging the European dog, and that the leaders of the EU and its constituent parts (Hungary and Slovakia aside) are now facing an increasingly angry electorate.
I wonder if they will adopt the response of their erstwhile proxy in the western war against Russia, and avoid the issue of elections entirely?
Henry Kamens, columnist and expert on Central Asia and the Caucasus
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
