Prejšnji teden je ponovno v polni bolečini razkazal evropski blef glede vojne v Ukrajini. In na popolno evopsko irelevantnost. Tako patetična gesta četverice evropskih političnih klovnov na obsiku v Kijevu z grožnjo s 17. paketom sankcij proti Rusiji, če Rusija ne pristane na “brezpogojno enomesečno premirje” kot nemška, francoska in britanska grožnja, da bodo Ukrajini dali na voljo rakete dolgega dometa sta utemeljeni na – sodelovanju ZDA v tem početju. Prvič, evropske države ne morejo sankcionirati ruske “sive tankerske flote” v mednarodnih vodah, ker (ob tem, da nimajo pravne podlage) tega brez sodelovanja ZDA ne morejo izvesti. Rusija zasedbo teh tankerjev lahko razume kot “vojno dejanje” in ustrezno ravna, evropske države pa brez sodelovanja Nata (torej ZDA) temu ne morejo kontrirati. In to je tudi pokazal incident prejšnji teden s poskusom estonske žepne mornarice, da prisili tanker iz Gabona, da se iz mednarodnih voda premakne v estonske vode, kjer bi ga lahko zasegli. Po posredovanju ruskih lovcev se je estonska akcija klavrno končala. Drugič, evropske države ne morejo razlastniniti Rusije njenih zaseženih monetarnih rezerv, ker je to v nasprotju z mednarodnim pravom in ker bi povsem porušilo zaupanje v mednarodne finance. In tretjič, nemške, francoske in britanske rakete dolgega dometa ne morejo delovati na ozemlju Rusije brez obveščevalne in satelitske podpore ZDA.

Zato, če ste spremljali izjave evropskih političnih klovnov, ki so se junačili okrog dneva zmage s temi grožnjami, so proti koncu svojih groženj vedno dodali, da temeljijo na ameriški podpori. Torej so se zavestno junačili s skrivanjem za hrbtom ZDA, da bi izgledali kredibilno. Toda problem je, da vsi, tudi celotna evropska javnost, v polni razsežnosti vidi ta blef evropskih političnih klovnov. In problem, da celoten svet vidi ta ponižujoč evropski zdrs v popolno mednarodno irelevantnost.

Razumem bolečino evropskih političnih klovnov zaradi njihove nemoči in popolne irelevantnosti tega, kar govoričijo ali delajo oziroma poskušajo narediti. Toda s tem klovnovskim obnašanjem samo še bolj razkrivajo to, kar so – politični klovni. V posmeh celemu svetu.

Spodaj je dober komentar na to temo.

_____________

As the Istanbul peace talks get underway, Europe’s response to the Russia-Ukraine war exposes its profound weakness and reliance on U.S. support, with leaders like France’s Emmanuel Macron, Britain’s Keir Starmer, and Germany’s Friedrich Merz resorting to bluffs that lack substance.

The European trio, after visiting Kyiv and meeting with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on May 10, issued Russia a 30-day ceasefire ultimatum to begin on May 12, threatening severe sanctions in case of Moscow’s non-compliance. Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed it, offering talks in Istanbul without a truce instead, in line with Russia’s insistence that the “root causes” of the conflict be addressed, including Ukraine’s potential NATO membership.

Kyiv and its European allies insisted that a ceasefire should precede talks. However, U.S. President Donald Trump’s call for immediate negotiations, sidestepping the ceasefire, upended their strategy and forced Zelenskyy’s attendance. Europe has exposed itself as being increasingly irrelevant, its strategies crumbling without American backing.

…

EU diplomats admit that “massive” sanctions of the sort threatened by Macron or escalatory steps like sending German Taurus missiles to Ukraine lack credibility without U.S. support and would take too long to implement, allowing Moscow to dismiss them as a bluff. With gas phase-outs delayed until 2027 and internal divisions — Hungary’s and Slovakia’s resistance chief among them — Europe’s economic leverage seems even less convincing.

Macron’s posturing further underscores this weakness. He admitted France has exhausted its aid to Ukraine and cannot escalate support. He noted that frozen Russian assets cannot be confiscated due to legal barriers, warning that Moscow could reclaim them if sanctions falter — a damning admission of Europe’s fragility.

His proposal to deploy European troops in Ukraine, framed as an alternative to NATO membership, is another empty gesture. “We cannot leave Ukraine alone. Since it will not join NATO, we offer alternative guarantees,” Macron claimed, suggesting troops be placed in “strategically important points” away from the front for joint operations to create a “deterrence effect.”

Yet, he confirmed no combat role, and Russia’s repeated opposition to Western troops renders the idea toothless. Macron and Starmer concede the plan hinges on Kyiv-Moscow agreements, admitting its speculative nature. Starmer, echoing Macron’s rhetoric, offers no concrete commitments, while Merz, Germany’s new chancellor, pushes for sanctions and aid but lacks the fiscal or political clout to act unilaterally. Their collective strategy — threatening Russia with sanctions or troops — collapses without U.S. muscle. It also diverts the focus from what should be a serious conversation on realistic, achievable security guarantees for Ukraine.

As the EU threatens sanctions if Russia rejects a ceasefire, Europe’s diluted measures and lack of coordination with Washington expose the bluff. Trump’s proximity to Istanbul during a Middle East visit could see him intervene if talks show promise, reinforcing his role as the decisive player. Without U.S.-driven terms or a U.S.-Russia deal, Europe’s calls for peace along current lines are futile, as neither Moscow nor Kyiv sees their respective positions as too weak to agree to unfavorable terms.

If the Istanbul talks lead to some sort of an agreement, it is Trump who’ll be in a position to claim credit as he insisted on the talks to take place in the first place. If the talks fail, Trump’s reaction — escalating arms deliveries to Ukraine, pressuring Kyiv, maintaining limited support, or disengaging — will impact the war’s trajectory.

Europe, shackled by weak sanctions, exhausted resources, hollow proposals, and stubborn refusal to talk to Moscow has no independent path.

Vir: Eldar Mamedov, Responsible Statecraft