The EU throws an epic tantrum as Trump meets with Putin
sott.net -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 1:54:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, U.S.–NATO Relations
Brussels has been relegated to running behind Trump, pleading to let Zelensky have any say in a Russia-Ukraine war resolution.
The European Union had been wailing about "transatlantic unity" in the run-up to US President Trump heading to the negotiating table with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday - without it. It sounded like a toddler stomping their feet because Daddy let go of their hand in the mall and now they're lost between Cinnabon and Burger King.
A lot of good their dogmatic rhetoric has done them so far. If it wasn't for Brussels getting drunk on its own transatlantic solidarity and unity propaganda, maybe it wouldn't currently be in economic and political dire straits. The kind where you're trying to duct-tape your economy back together with overpriced American gas.
They could have charted a different path vis-a-vis Russia. Maybe one that involved spearheading diplomacy rather than marching in lockstep behind the US-led NATO parade of weapons and fighters on Russia's border with Ukraine, which helped supercharge the conflict in the first place. They could have insisted on keeping their cheap Russian energy instead of sanctioning their own imports like they were vying for a Nobel Prize in masochism.
Now, the US is daring them to even close their clever little loophole in their own anti-Russian sanctions. The one that lets them moralize about helping Ukraine and the need to avoid negotiations with Russia while guzzling Russian fuel on the down-low. Trump Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told them to "put up or shut up" and sanction the Indian and Chinese importers of Russian petroleum through which the EU still buys Russian fuel.
While the EU indulges itself in rhetorical games, Trump has dropped all pretexts of serving any interests but America's first, and isn't following any agenda beyond trying to wrap things up with Russia in Ukraine and to score some economic wins in the process. Brussels has had more than three years to do the same. Instead, it kept repeating the mantra that Kiev had to win on the battlefield. There were no other options, it said.
Whoops! Now that the option has materialized, the Europeans are relegated to running behind Trump, pleading with him to indulge them by letting Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky decide where the post-conflict borders will be. What did they think the downside of their "win by force" gamble would be, if not changed borders? The EU insists on Ukraine fighting Russia with EU cash and weapons, and when Kiev loses, they say:
"Ok, well this sucks - how about if everyone just pretends that none of this happened and we dial all the territorial gains and losses back to a point of our choosing, okay?" The EU insisted on waiting for someone else to take the initiative for peace. Now all it can do is pick up its pom-poms and cheer Trump on. Then hope that he rewards it.
As Zelensky's self-appointed babysitters, instead of spending the past week in the run-up to the Alaska summit insisting that Putin and Trump allow a high chair booster seat and a pack of crayons at the negotiating table so he can show them where he wants the borders, maybe the Europeans should have been calming him down and managing expectations. He sounded like he was treating his phone like a toy, calling up everyone in the contacts under "EU" - Estonia, Denmark, probably a few pizza places...
The EU has tried to gaslight Trump with the same rhetoric that it constantly firehoses onto European citizens about peace in Ukraine being a dangerous gateway drug for Russia to invade Western Europe - a convenient marketing pitch to justify boosting the weapons industry to the detriment of domestic priorities. Not even warhawk US Senator Lindsey Graham is saying that now, telling NBC News that "Russia is not going to Kiev"...let alone the EU.
European leaders treated Wednesday's video call with Trump like a win. Perhaps because he didn't explicitly tell them off, for once. But they really have no idea what he'll actually discuss with Putin, nor do they have leverage over any eventual US-Russia deal. They don't know whether Trump is just placating them because he doesn't need a bunch of hysterical circus clowns in the mix.
So how could the EU spin this to avoid looking completely irrelevant? Unelected EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said:
"Today Europe, the US and NATO have strengthened the common ground for Ukraine, we will remain in close coordination. Nobody wants peace more than us. A just and lasting peace." Yeah, sounds desperate for peace, alright.
Which must be why the EU is building weapons factories at breakneck speed, according to the Financial Times. Nothing says "we're committed to ending the war" like tripling down on weapons. What are you going to do with all those if peace breaks out? Toss them in the landfill and hope that taxpayers forget about the boondoggle.
Brussels talks like a co-architect of global policy, but in practice it's more like a subcontractor who has to implement someone else's blueprint. The Alaska summit exclusion exposes how little agency it actually has in resolving conflicts that it has been funding and fueling. So much for a "feminist" foreign policy. The EU is behaving like a geopolitical tradwife.
Whatever happens between Trump and Putin, the EU has already vowed to adopt Ukraine's problems while crossing its fingers that Trump might pitch in with "assistance" - military or otherwise. Why would Trump want a piece of that when Brussels has already welcomed it being dumped on its lap? Why settle for normalization with Russia, business, trade, and peace when you can have endless soap opera reruns instead?
Sign Our PetitionThe recent dynamics surrounding the EU's response to the Ukraine crisis during President Trump's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin illuminate a broader pattern of geopolitical maneuvering that prioritizes power over the urgent need for diplomatic resolution. The depiction of the EU's reaction as that of a petulant child desperately clutching at straws reveals the inherent contradictions in its approach to foreign policy, particularly when contrasted with the historical lessons of diplomacy and negotiation. The insistence on military solutions without a concurrent effort to engage in genuine dialogue underscores a repeated failure of international actors to learn from the past — a past filled with conflicts exacerbated by an unwillingness to negotiate and understand the complexities of regional geopolitics.
Historically, the EU's reliance on transatlantic solidarity has often blinded it to the nuances of its own interests and capabilities. The post-Cold War era marked a significant pivot towards integrating Eastern European nations into NATO and the EU, often with a unilateral focus on isolating Russia. This strategy, while rooted in a desire to promote democracy and human rights, has often led to confrontation rather than cooperation. The EU's current predicament, characterized by economic distress and dependency on American energy, exemplifies the contradictions in its policies. By aligning too closely with the U.S. and neglecting potential avenues for dialogue with Russia, the EU has inadvertently contributed to the very instability it seeks to mitigate.
Moreover, the EU's emphasis on "winning" the conflict in Ukraine through military assistance and sanctions has generated a cycle of escalation that leaves little room for negotiation. The mantra that Ukraine must prevail militarily ignores the historical realities of conflict resolution, which suggest that sustainable peace often arises from compromise. The insistence that victory on the battlefield is the only path forward not only disregards the realities on the ground but also neglects the agency of the Ukrainian people, who bear the brunt of this ongoing war. As the EU pursues a strategy of attrition, it risks further entrenching divisions and prolonging the suffering of civilians caught in the crossfire.
In light of the evolving situation, the EU must reconsider its approach to diplomacy with Russia. The current narrative that positions the EU as a passive player, merely waiting for the U.S. to dictate the terms of engagement, is not only damaging but also unsustainable. A more proactive role in seeking diplomatic solutions could not only alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine but also pave the way for a more stable and secure Europe. Embedding negotiation within its foreign policy framework could lead to a reassessment of sanctions and a more balanced approach to energy independence, ultimately reducing the EU's vulnerability to external pressures.
Finally, the call for a reevaluation of the EU's strategy is not merely a matter of political expediency; it is also a moral imperative. The ongoing war in Ukraine has significant implications not just for European security but for global stability. The historical context of military engagements shows that the failure to engage in diplomacy often results in prolonged conflicts that disproportionately affect the most vulnerable populations. As the EU contemplates its next steps, it must prioritize the principles of peace, dialogue, and mutual respect, drawing on past lessons to forge a new path forward — one that values the voices of those most affected by the war and seeks to cultivate a lasting resolution rather than a temporary cessation of hostilities. By doing so, the EU can emerge not just as a regional power but as a leader in the global pursuit of justice and peace.
The article conveys a critical perspective on the European Union's response to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, particularly in light of former President Trump’s dealings with Russian President Putin. It underscores a narrative of European impotence and miscalculation in foreign policy, especially regarding what is deemed a failure to adequately respond to Russia’s aggression. However, this critique opens up a broader discussion about the dynamics of international relations, the efficacy of military versus diplomatic solutions, and the importance of informed public discourse.
Historically, the EU has positioned itself as a peace-promoting entity, often countering U.S. militarism with a more diplomatic approach. However, this article suggests that the EU’s reliance on NATO and military solutions has ultimately backfired, leading to an economic and political quagmire. In the context of the current geopolitical landscape, it is crucial to understand that the EU’s approach has roots in Cold War-era thinking, where deterrence was prioritized over dialogue. The consequences of this mindset are evident today, as European nations grapple with energy shortages and economic instability due to their sanctions on Russia. By acknowledging this historical context, we can better understand the urgency for a renewed diplomatic strategy that prioritizes negotiation and conflict resolution over military involvement.
As concerned citizens in the U.S., we have a vital role to play in shaping our foreign policy and holding our leaders accountable. One avenue for action is to advocate for a more nuanced understanding of international conflicts, particularly regarding the Russian-Ukrainian war. Engaging in community discussions, writing to representatives, and pushing for educational initiatives about the geopolitical implications of our foreign policy can foster a more informed electorate. Moreover, we can amplify the voices of those who advocate for peace and diplomacy rather than escalating military tensions. By promoting platforms and organizations that prioritize negotiation and humanitarian aid, we can shift the narrative towards a more collaborative approach to conflict resolution.
Educational initiatives are particularly important in fostering a nuanced understanding of international relations. Schools, universities, and community organizations can host panels and discussions that bring together diverse perspectives on the conflict and the role of the EU, the U.S., and Russia. By facilitating dialogue that includes historians, political scientists, and activists, we can create a more well-rounded discourse that moves beyond simplistic narratives. This not only empowers individuals to engage critically with current events but also encourages a more informed citizenry that can challenge dominant narratives that prioritize military solutions over diplomatic ones.
In the face of rising tensions and the potential for conflict escalation, it is essential to consider the broader implications of our foreign policy. The article presents the EU’s predicament as a cautionary tale about the consequences of neglecting diplomacy in favor of aggression. As Americans, we must learn from these missteps by advocating for policies that prioritize negotiation, humanitarian aid, and international cooperation. By doing so, we can help cultivate a global environment that values dialogue over conflict, ultimately leading to more sustainable and peaceful resolutions to complex geopolitical issues.
In conclusion, the critique of the EU's handling of the Ukraine-Russia situation serves as a reminder of the importance of diplomatic engagement in international relations. As we navigate the complexities of a rapidly changing world, we must champion policies that prioritize dialogue and understanding. By advocating for a shift away from militaristic approaches and fostering informed public discourse, we can contribute to a future that values peace and cooperation over division and conflict. It is this commitment to diplomacy that will ultimately empower us to address the challenges we face on the global stage.
Analyzing the article reveals significant concerns regarding international diplomacy, energy dependency, and the role of major geopolitical players in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. To address these issues effectively, individuals can engage in various actions that promote peace, accountability, and a more balanced foreign policy. Below is a detailed list of ideas on how to take action personally.
### What Can We Personally Do About This?
1. **Educate Ourselves and Others**: Stay informed about international relations, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and the EU's role in it. Share knowledge with friends, family, and community groups.
2. **Advocate for Diplomacy**: Encourage local representatives and leaders to support diplomatic efforts rather than military ones in conflicts involving Russia and Ukraine.
3. **Support Energy Independence Initiatives**: Advocate for policies and practices that promote renewable energy and reduce dependency on foreign fossil fuels.
### Exact Actions We Can Take
1. **Sign Petitions for Peace and Diplomacy**: - **Petition to Congress for Diplomacy in Ukraine**: Search for online petitions on platforms like Change.org or MoveOn.org that advocate for diplomatic negotiations with Russia. Sign and share these petitions widely. - **Example**: Find a petition titled “Promote Peace in Ukraine” on Change.org.
2. **Contact Elected Officials**: - **Who to Write To**: Reach out to your U.S. Senators and Representatives to express your views on the need for diplomatic solutions and to reduce military involvement. - **How to Find Them**: Use [Congress.gov](https://www.congress.gov/) to obtain names, email addresses, and mailing addresses. - **Example Contacts**: - **Senator Elizabeth Warren** (D-MA) - Email: https://www.warren.senate.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 2400 JFK Federal Building, 15 Sudbury Street, Boston, MA 02203 - **Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez** (D-NY) - Email: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 1652 A Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
3. **Social Media Advocacy**: - Use platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook to advocate for peace. Tag officials and use hashtags like #DiplomacyInUkraine and #EndTheWar to raise awareness. - Share articles, infographics, and personal thoughts on the importance of a diplomatic approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
4. **Engage with Local Organizations**: - Volunteer or support organizations that focus on peace-building and conflict resolution. - Examples include: - **The Peace Alliance** (www.peacealliance.org): Advocate for policies that promote peace. - **World Beyond War** (www.worldbeyondwar.org): Join campaigns that promote global disarmament and advocacy for peace.
5. **Participate in Peaceful Demonstrations**: - Join local or national protests advocating for peace in Ukraine. Check social media or community boards for upcoming events.
6. **Write Opinion Pieces or Letters to the Editor**: - Express your views in local newspapers or online publications about the need for diplomatic solutions and the dangers of escalating military involvement. Contact local newspapers to find submission guidelines.
7. **Educate and Mobilize Your Community**: - Organize or attend community meetings to discuss the implications of ongoing conflicts and potential peaceful resolutions. Bring together like-minded individuals to brainstorm actions.
### What To Say
When communicating with officials or the public, consider these points:
- **Express Concern**: "I am deeply concerned about the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the EU's dependency on militaristic strategies." - **Advocate for Peace**: "I urge you to support diplomatic negotiations to find a sustainable solution to the crisis rather than escalating military involvement." - **Highlight Energy Issues**: "It is crucial that we transition to renewable energy sources to reduce our dependency on foreign fossil fuels and avoid economic pitfalls tied to geopolitical conflicts." - **Call for Accountability**: "The time has come for the EU and the U.S. to take a stand for peace and prioritize the voices of those directly affected by the conflict."
By taking these actions, individuals can play a vital role in advocating for diplomacy and a more balanced approach to international relations, ultimately contributing to a more peaceful world.