Europe’s Crisis of Courage

European Lessons from Trump’s failed Ukraine Deal 

Trump’s 28-point-peace plan leaked on 19 November; since then, the plan fell through and much has been discussed about how much Russia stood to gain from the deal and how Trump bent to Putin’s will. Conspicuously, little has been said of the European role in the creation as well as execution of the failed peace plan. Considering the implications of this plan for the EU, it would behoove Europeans to reflect on how their weak and timid leaders, in failing to grasp their own negotiating power, contributed to this travesty of a peace plan, and explore what they could have done differently. 

Regarding the lack of commentary on Europe’s direct role in forming this deal, no elaboration is needed: Europe was entirely sidelined during negotiations. In the execution of the peace plan, however, Europe would in fact have to play a role.  

Point 14 of the plan states that $100 billion of frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild Ukraine, as a form of reparations. Additionally, the EU will also be forced to pay for Ukraine’s rebuilding, as it will have to match Russia’s $100 billion investment in this fund. Here’s the kicker: having contributed nothing, America will receive 50% of all profits from this venture.  

The remainder of the frozen Russian funds will be invested in a separate US-Russian investment vehicle, excluding Europe, that has the explicit goal of strengthening US-Russia relations. 

And finally, according to Points 15 and 27, Europe will not have a say in how the plan will be implemented. 

The EU supplied more aid to Ukraine, suffered more from the economic fallout of the war, and took in more Ukrainian refugees than America; in return, Trump is treating the EU like a group of irrelevant and irritating client states that are only useful for periodic money extraction, who - judging by the parity of their forced reparation payments - are as much to blame for starting the war as Russia is. The fact that any European leader can still call America an “ally” after such a brazen act of betrayal and war-profiteering is a testament to the continued impotence of European leadership. 

The EU should not allow itself to be treated this way. Even if it was impossible to force themselves onto the negotiating table, there would still be ways for EU leaders to have made their voices heard. By preemptively stripping Russia of key negotiating leverage, European leaders could have substantially improved the starting conditions of peace negotiations in Ukraine. Firstly, granting EU membership to Ukraine ahead of negotiations would have deprived Russia of a powerful bargaining chip without forcing a reciprocal Ukrainian concession. Secondly, releasing Russian central bank assets to Ukraine would massively boost Ukraine’s war effort and consequently improve its position on the battlefield, thereby handing Ukraine further leverage. Moreover, such a projection of hard power would bring the bloc eye to eye with the US and Russia and serve as an exertion and reminder of European autonomy. Maybe this would persuade Trump away from viewing the EU as a pathetic cash cow, as he currently does. 

“But how could Russian asset liquidation and rapid EU accession feasibly be achieved?” you might ask… 

It’s true, confiscating Russian central bank assets is a legal gray zone, but pedantic legal compliance in the face of Putin is only an act of cowardice. International law involving Russia has been rendered meaningless after Putin flagrantly broke the terms of the Belovezha Forest accords and the Budapest Memoranda - which included explicit guarantees by the Russian Federation to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine - in its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 (note that the Budapest Memoranda saw Ukraine voluntarily hand away its entire nuclear arsenal - the third largest in the world at the time - to Russia in exchange for peace agreements). 

Former Austrian PM Schallenberger said that confiscating Russia’s assets would be a “disgrace” to the bloc’s reputation.

I contend that allowing the EU to be treated as a powerless geopolitical afterthought is a far greater threat to the bloc’s reputation than the punitive confiscation of a country’s central bank assets as a response to it having started the largest European land war since 1945. If a country spits in the face of the rules-based international order, as Russia has, then it should not be awarded the privilege of being treated in accordance with international law. This is a mechanism of enforcing compliance. 

Furthermore, had the EU released Russian assets to Ukraine, European countries would have had to spend substantially less on aid. This reduced fiscal strain would counteract the potential detrimental effects of capital flight as a consequence of confiscating Russian assets. 

Regarding EU accession: Europe can, in fact, muscle its way through rapid Ukrainian accession into the EU. Let’s run through the possibilities. The only country that stands in the way is Hungary, as it can veto this process. When this happens, the remaining 26 EU countries could first threaten total suspension of EU funding to Hungary, which is vital to its already-struggling economy. If Orban refuses, the next attempt would be to offer substantial EU funding for Hungary in return for voting in favour of fast-tracking accession.

This strategy has already worked before. In the case that Orban still refuses, work on passing article 7 should begin, which would suspend Hungary’s voting rights. However, Slovakia is likely to veto this. Unfortunately, this would begin a difficult process of lobbying to either convince Slovakia to pass article 7, or to convince Orban to change his mind about accession.

Even if success is not guaranteed, the effort should still be made. 

Europe should, therefore, remember its place and power in the world. Working together cohesively, the EU member states have more than enough economic and military weight behind them to effectively resist Russian aggression from the East and American economic exploitation from the West. Without decisive and risk-taking leadership, Europe will continue to fade into irrelevance.