“reaction-oriented” instead of “decision-making”; Europe’s passivity against America

According to Isna, the American media points out in a new article that Europe’s behavior during intensive diplomatic maneuvers to determine the future of Ukraine is a sign of a deeper crisis within the European Union; A crisis that the author describes as “psychology of weakness”.

“Politico” magazine reports that the European Union cannot play a central role even in matters directly related to its own security and is mostly reacting to the decisions of others.

According to this report, the negotiations on the future of the war in Ukraine, which is considered a critical issue for Europe, are proceeding almost without an effective presence of the Union. The United States and other actors determine the direction of the negotiations, and Europe’s role is limited to “consequence management, damage reduction and the hope of rebuilding lost influence.” This marginalization is not the result of a particular leader’s decision or policies, but part of a broader pattern of structural vulnerability.

Politico argues that Europe’s recent behavior shows a continent “lacking courage” and unable to act decisively, even in areas where its core interests are at stake. Europe is drowning in a kind of deterministic mentality; A mentality that, by justifying weakness and waiting for political conditions to change (for example, the US mid-term elections), actually leads to passivity. But Politico asks: Can Europe really wait?

On the subject of Ukraine, the article notes that although European leaders have repeatedly emphasized that Ukraine’s security is vital to European security, actual European military aid has declined in recent months. Financially, this union has failed the test it has set. Ukraine needs about 70 billion euros annually; A figure that is only 0.35% of the Union’s gross domestic product. For months, however, Europe has been unable to agree on how to use Russia’s blocked assets or on alternatives.

This article emphasizes that instead of decisive action, Europe has been engaged in “procrastination and short-sightedness”. For example, the unilateral action of the United States to determine how to use Russian assets and allocate 50% of its profits to Washington instead of Kiev has just forced Europe to examine this issue more seriously.

In the economic field, the article highlights the signs of Europe’s weakness. The EU-US trade agreement signed in July is, in the author’s view, a clear example of how “weakness” can be disguised as “pragmatism”. Despite the tools such as economic pressure measures and counter-tariffs, Europe decided not to use these tools due to the fear of reducing America’s commitment to the security of Europe and Ukraine. The result was a one-sided deal with a 15 percent tariff that violates WTO rules and obliges Europe to buy energy and invest heavily in the United States, without the promised stability.

The American media shows that the same pattern can be seen in Europe’s confrontation with Russia’s combined war, China’s commercial pressures, and developments in West Asia. In each crisis, Europe’s role has become smaller and less effective.

In the end, the article concludes that Europe’s main challenge is psychological: believing in one’s own ability, including the ability to say “no”. But this is only possible if Europe invests in a common decision-making structure and common financial resources. Strengthening the European Union requires giving up some national powers, but in return, Europe will gain something fundamental: the ability to stand in a world shaped by figures like Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping.

end of message