The meeting held in Paris last Thursday between the so-called "Willing", that is, the leaders of thirty countries, and representatives of NATO and the European Union, had as its object the security of Ukraine, and in particular the identification of long-term security guarantees towards Russia. Security to be found, in essence, and according to what was possible to learn from the media, in the strengthening of aid to Kiev and in the deployment of European troops under the leadership of France and Great Britain.

Nothing new, therefore, it would seem. The short-term objective, all things considered, would appear, at least in terms of intent, to be that of going to Ukraine to proceed with the strengthening of the army there. On the sending of “peacekeeping” troops to Ukraine, however, there does not appear to have been unanimity among the various leaders. So, to make a long story short: while the Russians and the Ukrainians are engaged, each separately, in negotiations with Donald Trump's United States, the only mediator legitimized and recognized by both parties in conflict (if only one considers that only Ukraine, the weak part of the triangulation, would admit the European Union to the table), the European leaders, left out of the game, so to speak, are trying to intervene, even if it is not yet clear exactly how, and would like to carve out a place for themselves that would not otherwise be recognized at the negotiating table underway in Riyadh.

The involvement of Europe, or rather of its “Coalition of the Willing”, a definition which would seem to circumscribe its limits even before its actual potential, does not appear to be contemplated. Even more so when Vladimir Putin himself has clearly and firmly expressed his dissent regarding any European military presence in Ukraine. And even more so when, at the same time, Vladimir Putin himself has asked, as an essential condition for the “ceasefire”, the lifting of sanctions imposed on Moscow, as well as the withdrawal of Western military support to Kiev.

The European Union, or more correctly its “Coalition of the Willing”, would seem to want to intervene and carve out a leading role, which it has never had before. But who would benefit from such a position would not seem to be clear, also because it does not seem to have emerged clearly (the conditional seems necessary) why European security should pass through the security of Ukraine.

If at the beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict a powerful implementation of the Atlantic alliance had taken shape, under the leadership of Joe Biden, in the aftermath of Donald Trump's proclamation as the forty-seventh President of the United States of America, the terms of that same alliance would seem to have transformed, if not actually reversed, to the point of not only undermining the equation "security of Ukraine equals security of Europe" and of the West broadly understood, but also the founding elements of what could be defined as necessary democratic "governance".

The geopolitical context certainly appears to have changed and the European Union, beyond and beyond the "Coalition of the Willing" that would seem to overlap with the American initiative, finds itself forced to undertake in a hurry, given the pressing nature of events, some strategic-relational assessments concerning not only the relationship with Donald Trump's United States, but also with Xi-Jin-Ping's China, which has always been very close to Vladimir Putin's Russia. To put it differently, the European Union, considered as a whole on a political level (and this is the objective we should focus on), seems to be called upon today to define its role on the international scene starting from the outcome of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Also because, at the present time, the possibility of influencing in any way the terms of the agreement that will be imposed on Ukraine to achieve peace, appears, barring further developments, to be very minimal.

The twenty-seven Member States of the European Union should begin to share efficient initiatives to finally reach an authentic political unity, suitable to guarantee the Old Continent that independence and self-sufficiency useful to safeguard its interests against all the major international players, including the United States.

In an era of profound transition, only and exclusively the political unity of the European Union can be considered as the initial bulwark of common defense and negotiating autonomy.

Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro

© Riproduzione riservata