Following the release of a joint US-Russian proposal to end the war in Ukraine, parallels with the events of 1939 are increasingly being drawn in Europe. Bloomberg columnist Mark Champion compared the proposed plan to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which effectively divided Eastern Europe between the USSR and Nazi Germany and paved the way for Hitler’s invasion of Poland. In his opinion, the current actions of Washington and Moscow demonstrate a similar logic of great powers trying to redistribute influence on the continent — this time at the expense of Ukraine.
Champion notes that he has been warning since February that Donald Trump's administration is not so much seeking peace for Ukraine as a "reset" of relations with Russia. The publication of a 28-point plan, agreed without the participation of Kyiv or its European partners, only confirmed these fears. And when European leaders realized that they were left alone in containing Moscow, the question arose: is the EU capable of becoming an independent strategic player? The answer, according to the author, is unpleasant - the European Union is historically not adapted to demonstrating hard power.
The European project was built as the antithesis of wars between its own — that's why the EU received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012. But in the field of defense, the bloc systematically shifted responsibility to NATO, that is, to the US. As a result, Champion explains, the current EU resembles a footballer who is forced to play rugby: the available tools for power diplomacy are insufficient.
However, Europe, according to the columnist, will have to take a leap into the unknown. He sees the solution outside the EU institutions - through coalitions of countries that are ready to act faster and more decisively. Examples are already emerging: Great Britain leads the Joint Expeditionary Force of ten Nordic states; there is the North-Baltic Eight, and London and Paris are forming a coalition together for a future peacekeeping mission in Ukraine. Niklas Helvig, a researcher at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, considers such fragmentation not a flaw, but perhaps even an advantage - after all, key regional players, in particular Britain, Norway and Turkey, are not members of the EU.
Europe, Champion emphasizes, is returning to the reality of history after several decades of "utopian respite." Its primary task is to rearm and form a common position on threats. But throughout history, the continent has only united when the danger became obvious and existential: as during the Cold War or the opposition to the Ottoman Empire in the 17th century.
According to the columnist, today's challenge for European leaders is to find a way to simultaneously preserve peace within the bloc and project strength externally to confront Russia and prevent it from imposing a scenario similar to the one agreed upon between Moscow and Berlin in 1939.
European media remind us that these processes are unfolding against the backdrop of deepening contacts between the US and Russia, as well as Washington's threats to limit support for Kyiv. According to the New York Post, financing Ukrainian defense for four years will cost Europe much less than the consequences of capitulation to the Kremlin. Bloomberg, in turn, writes that many European countries are already preparing to deter Russia on their own - investing in the arms industry and conducting exercises without the participation of the US.
