What happened last February 28, 2025 in Washington should induce a reflection inspired by rationality and concreteness on the part of the European Union as a whole, and of the individual countries that compose it, since, if it were not clear, that meeting, in its tone, in its contents, and in its mortifying epilogue, would seem to have marked the construction of a clear dividing dam between two waters, if metaphorically we wanted to describe it in these terms.
The “West”, as it has always been conceptually conceived, would seem (the dubious formula is imposed) to have been archived, and at the outcome of that fateful meeting, it might perhaps seem inappropriate to express oneself in terms of “alliance”. The position of the new tenant of the White House, and of his entire very powerful entourage, diametrically opposed to that followed by his predecessor and by the European Union itself, seems to have been clear, and emerged in all its self-evident “clarity” during the meeting-clash between Donald Trump together with his Vice JD Vance, and Volodymir Zelensky.
According to Donald Trump, Volodymir Zelensky does not have the credentials to negotiate and is not yet ready for peace. In essence, to be brief, according to Donald Trump, Volodymir Zelensky is negotiating much more than he is capable of doing. In essence, according to the bare and crude words of Donald Trump, either Kiev decides to pursue a peace agreement as outlined by the United States, or it will have to continue fighting alone without American military and financial support. The European Union is “not counted”, in the sense that its positions do not seem to interest the White House, which, otherwise, would have involved it.
Among the Europeans, no one, in truth, has been involved. But Volodymir Zelensky, and with him the European Union itself, would seem to continue to reiterate that they certainly want peace, but a "just peace" (an expression that should perhaps find unanimity of meaning among all interested parties), focused, on the one hand, on the presence of European peacekeeping troops that are effectively part of any possible agreement to safeguard Ukraine from further potential Russian attacks, and on the other hand, focused on the restoration of its territorial integrity, meaning with this expression, not only the recovery of the Crimean peninsula, lost following a war in 2014, but also of a good part of its eastern territories, such as, for example, the Donbas region.
So, if these would seem to be the mutual positions, the ceasefire could still be far away. The situation would appear paradoxical in its articulations, and the European Union, in the dynamics that have occurred, appears to occupy the most uncomfortable position, if we wanted to define it that way, since it intends to carry forward the original approach agreed with the Joe Biden administration. Saying it differently with respect to the individual parties involved: Russia's position has remained crystallized and unchanged and very clear throughout the entire conflict, that of the United States has instead changed drastically but still appears extremely determined, while that of the European Union, beyond the statement of principle that reiterates its support for Kiev, does not seem to go further, if only we consider that the positions of the individual Member States do not appear to present themselves as univocal. Even more so when we stop to consider that the Baltic countries, for example, were not invited to the London summit. And even more so when Slovakia seems to have announced that it will not offer its economic and military support to Ukraine to allow it to continue the conflict.
If one were to examine the position of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, he would seem to have urged the European Union to engage in direct talks with Russia. On the other hand, no peace decision could ever be made without the active participation of Vladimir Putin.
Beyond the exhortation of the President of the Council of Ministers Giorgia Meloni, according to which it is necessary to avoid the risk of the West dividing, and beyond even the statement of Prime Minister Starmer, according to which it is necessary to do everything necessary to defend Ukraine, and which in truth would not seem to add anything new to what has been argued so far during the entire Russian-Ukrainian conflict, what substantial decisions would have emerged from that Summit? To what extent would those decisions be, if they were, binding? Binding for whom considering the different existing approaches even within the European Union?
If the defense of Ukraine should pass through the involvement of Donald Trump's United States, an expression of a position diametrically opposed to that of the previous administration, that is, Joe Biden's position, then, perhaps, the substantial tenor of the meeting between Donald Trump and Volodymir Zelenski on February 28 at the White House does not seem to have been understood. To put it another way: if from the meeting of a part of the European leaders in London, a line emerged that would seem to focus on those so-called security guarantees that Europe, with the support of the United States, would be able to ensure to Ukraine, through the sending of troops defined as "peace keeping", then perhaps we are left at the starting blocks, to use a metaphor. Also because the European Union, and/or at least part of it, and Great Britain, seem to continue not to want to consider that it would not be useful for Donald Trump to change the setting of his policy on Ukraine after having made that meeting with the Ukrainian leader public to the world. What would his supporters think? By changing his approach, Donald Trump would risk losing his appeal. Even the proposal of a meeting/summit between the European Union and the United States, where should it lead? And what if it had the opposite effect of highlighting the weakness of the European Union? The world is changing, and with it the positions on the field, which would seem very different from those known up to now.
Alliances may (the use of the conditional seems extremely necessary) have already changed. And then, if Russia is not involved, how can peace be discussed?
Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro
