Subscribe
“Complicated” is the right adjective to describe what has been happening in the last few hours. First the EU summit, then the meeting in Riyadh between US and Russian officials. The resolution of the conflict on Europe’s doorstep, which has been going on for three years now, is not so close. On the contrary, tensions between the various actors involved seem to have escalated. Trump, proponent of the summit in Saudi Arabia, was clear: ‘We hear that they (referring to the Ukrainians) were not invited to the negotiations. But they have been there for three years. They should have resolved the issue much earlier. They should never have started the war’. On the other side was President Zelensky who retorted: ‘Decisions on ending the war in Ukraine cannot be made without Ukraine. Conditions cannot be imposed without our involvement’. A four-armed tug-of-war, which does not exclude a mix of fake news (such as the origin of the war) and express announcements (such as sending EU troops to Ukraine).
The US position
During the long election campaign that preceded his victory and inauguration in the White House, Trump repeatedly promised to end the war in Ukraine, to be recognised as the one who would put an end to conflicts in the world, more generally. Because it should not be forgotten that, until a week ago, US interference in the negotiations between Israel and Hamas was strong, so much so that it conditioned the release of the hostages; the outcome of the meeting between Trump and Netanyahu had not pleased Hamas, just as the Israeli leader had not liked the positions of Egypt and Jordan on the reception of the Palestinian people. An entangled situation. The balance between the parties remains extremely precarious, but today, the US attention has shifted to the other front: the Russian-Ukrainian one. Here, once again, the tycoon took a very clear stance, excluding Ukraine altogether, despite having had contact with Zelensky in the days following the inauguration. According to Trump, Ukraine, and consequently Europe (although he has not said so explicitly), has done nothing concrete to put an end to the war and therefore believes that he can handle any negotiations with Russia without consulting those directly involved. In addition to this, from his residence in Mar-a-lago, the US President, speaking to reporters, also hinted that Zelensky’s approval rating would be ‘at 4%’: a clear reference to the need, from his point of view, of new elections in Ukraine. On this point, Zelensky’s response was not long in coming, accusing the tycoon of living ‘in a bubble of disinformation’. Trump believes that the step taken is useful for a real resolution. Not least because, according to reports following the 18 February meeting, there would already be an agreement for a face-to-face meeting with Putin probably in March or even, according to credible Kremlin sources, as early as the end of February. The two have reportedly already spoken on the phone for over an hour and a half, finding several points of agreement during the chat. A huge question mark remains over the role that, for Trump, Europe will have to play in this two-way vision. While on one hand he said he was in favour of the EU sending peacekeeping troops to Ukraine, an idea mooted only by some states but not shared by all, on the other hand he never mentioned EU countries as possible partners in this negotiation. This opens up a scenario that had not been contemplated until a few weeks ago: a two-way pact. The United States is changing face very quickly; Trump took office only a month ago, yet the executive orders signed and the more than symbolic handshakes have already redefined the US and what it will represent for the rest of the world during the coming years. It is up to Europe, in this case, to figure out how to deal with this new reality.
The EU summit in France
It is certainly not easy to find a new key, but one assumes that the EU does not want to act without the US. This was said by Giorgia Meloni, who was also present at Inauguration Day, and reiterated by Ursula von der Leyen in the last few hours. The close cooperation between the US and the EU that has characterised the last few years, in connection with the war between Russia and Ukraine, seems to have reached a turning point: is it about to end or renew itself, but with a different skin? It was the President of the European Commission, after Monday’s summit, who met in Brussels with US General Kellogg, US envoy for the Russian-Ukrainian issue. It was an opportunity for von der Leyen to reiterate ‘the EU’s fundamental role in ensuring the financial stability and defence of Ukraine, with a total commitment of €135 billion, more than any other ally’, according to the official note circulated immediately after the meeting. The President also added that the European commitment will not cease; wishing therefore for a lasting peace, she did not fail to mention that any negotiations must be based on independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Finally, the willingness to work synergistically with the United States was expressed. A point, this one, which is fundamental to highlight the exclusion from the preliminary meeting on Tuesday 18 February between Russia and the US. Among the complaints about sending peacekeeping troops to the border are those of Giorgia Meloni, who has spoken out for Italy. The Prime Minister, as official sources reveal, does not see this solution as effective; according to Meloni there are other roads to be pursued, roads that would not involve military engagement in this long conflict. On the subject of perplexity, the Italian leader, like von der Leyen, does not compromise on the possibility of an estrangement between the US and the EU, because ‘the involvement of the United States’ is fundamental, ‘it is in the Euro-Atlantic context that European and American security is founded’. Of the same opinion is German Chancellor Olaf Scholz who, at the end of the summit hosted by Macron, not only wished to emphatically reiterate that the issue of sending troops was neither shared nor to be investigated at present, but also stated that ‘we very much welcome the fact that we are talking about peace, but it cannot be a diktat, it cannot be imposed on Ukraine’. According to the German leader, it is indispensable to act in agreement with the United States, and there must not be, in his point of view, a division of labour, let alone responsibility for what happens on Ukrainian territory. In fact, Scholz explained to the media: ‘NATO is based on the fact that we always act together and share risks. This must not be questioned’. In the last few hours, the Foreign Minister, Antonio Tajani, has also expressed his views, not on a truce but on a real end to the conflict. In fact, the minister explained that Russia is inclined to end hostilities because it fears Ukraine’s rearmament. Speaking to Bruno Vespa on TV, Tajani also said that we are facing a complicated ‘chess game’ in which the US is working on two fronts: distancing Russia from China and trying to bring Russia closer politically, trying to find a key to resolving the war. Finally, he shared the US Secretary of State’s phone call to NATO foreign ministers to inform them about the content of the Riyadh meeting.