Europe’s political leadership is walking a tightrope between strategic ambition and strategic collapse. U.S. President Donald Trump’s new National Security Strategy warns that Europe is “teetering on the brink of irrelevance — or worse, annihilation” without a negotiated settlement in Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin accuses European leaders of sabotaging early peace efforts and turning Ukraine into a proxy battlefield to pursue the illusion of “strategic defeat” against Russia. Putin has warned that if “Europe all of a sudden chooses war, the response will be so rapid that there might be a situation where we have no one to negotiate with.”
Putin contrasted this potential confrontation with what he called Russia’s “restraint” in Ukraine, describing the invasion as a limited “surgical operation” rather than the full-scale assault he suggested would be unleashed against European states.
As the war enters another critical phase, Europe’s refusal to consider diplomacy, its massive militarization push, and internal divisions raise a stark question: Is Europe defending itself — or destroying itself?
By Subhash Dhuliya
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s remarks at the VTB “Russia Calling!” forum have triggered a shockwave across European capitals—not primarily because of the implied threat of overwhelming retaliation, but because they expose the bitter geopolitical contest behind stalled peace negotiations over Ukraine. Putin accused European governments of deliberately blocking a ceasefire and working to extend the war in hopes of achieving the long-promised but never delivered goal of a “strategic defeat” of Russia on the battlefield.
Speaking in Moscow, Putin responded to reports of European military contingency planning—citing Hungary’s Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó, who warned that several European states were preparing for a direct confrontation with Russia. Putin asserted that Russia does not seek war with Europe but is prepared if forced into one, and issued his now-viral warning:
“If Europe all of a sudden chooses war, the response will be so rapid that there might be a situation where we have no one to negotiate with.”
Much of the Western media seized on the phrase as nuclear brinkmanship. But the deeper significance lies elsewhere: as a political indictment of European elites who, according to Putin, are using Ukraine as a proxy battlefield to exhaust Russia, block emerging peace formulas, and maintain strategic leverage against Moscow.
Europe’s Campaign to Prevent a Negotiated Settlement
Putin asserted that Russia had repeatedly signaled readiness for a ceasefire—including proposals during early negotiations in Istanbul in 2022 and through several back-channel engagements since. But, he claimed, each time the talks gained momentum, European states intervened to sabotage them. The reason, he argued, was not concern for Ukraine’s sovereignty but the pursuit of a larger geopolitical objective:
“They want Russia’s defeat, not peace.”
European leaders have openly discussed this strategic aim across the past two years. Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the war must continue “until Russia is strategically defeated.” The EU’s top diplomat Josep Borrell declared in 2023 that “this war will be won on the battlefield—not at the negotiating table.”
Putin accuses Europe of clinging to what he calls “illusions of victory”, even as Ukrainian forces face exhaustion, territorial losses, and declining manpower. Increasingly, European rhetoric centers not on restoring stability, but on changing Russia itself, hinting at regime change ambitions that Moscow views as existential threats.
European leaders insist that the war must continue until Russia is weakened, dismissing negotiations as appeasement. Critics argue this approach has trapped Europe in a war it cannot win and cannot afford.
Trump’s National Security Strategy: Europe Wants War, America Wants a Deal
In a stark 33-page blueprint for America’s global posture, President Donald Trump’s National Security Strategy (NSS) has unleashed a torrent of criticism aimed squarely at Europe’s faltering resolve.
Released amid escalating tensions in Ukraine, the document paints a dire portrait of the continent as teetering on the brink of irrelevance—or worse, annihilation—unless it undergoes a radical political and cultural renaissance. “Europe risks being wiped away,” the NSS warns, evoking echoes of Cold War doomsday rhetoric but with a distinctly Trumpian edge: a call for self-reliance laced with disdain for transatlantic complacency.
Trump’s NSS argues that Europe risks geopolitical irrelevance unless it abandons “blind dependence on Washington” and seeks realistic diplomacy. Otherwise, he warns, the continent faces disaster.
At its core, the strategy indicts Washington’s NATO allies for fostering “unrealistic expectations” about the Ukraine conflict, a euphemism for Europe’s overreliance on U.S. largesse. The paper lambasts European leaders for a “lack of self-confidence” in confronting Russia, portraying them as enfeebled by bureaucratic inertia and ideological timidity. This isn’t mere finger-wagging; it’s a strategic pivot.
National Security Strategy (NSS) has amplified these tensions, casting Europe as the primary obstacle to peace. The 33-page document paints a portrait of a continent whose leaders are more interested in prolonging conflict than ending it—because a negotiated settlement would expose their strategic incompetence and political isolation.
The NSS argues that Europe has:
- constructed “unrealistic expectations” about Ukraine’s ability to defeat Russia outright,
- become dependent on U.S. resources while obstructing diplomatic efforts, and
- treated Ukraine not as a sovereign partner but as a military tool.
The document bluntly states that Europe has forced the United States into a war strategy it does not believe in and cannot sustain. It warns that without radical restructuring, Europe risks geopolitical irrelevance—or catastrophic escalation triggered by leaders who cannot admit failure.
Putin claims that European and U.S. officials blocked a near-finalized ceasefire during the 2022 Istanbul negotiations, choosing escalation over settlement in the pursuit of “strategic defeat.”
Trump, meanwhile, signals a willingness to explore “structured diplomatic channels with Russia where such dialogue aligns with broader American interests”—a line widely interpreted as signaling that Washington may pursue a deal around ceasefire terms even if Europe opposes it. For Brussels and Berlin, this is a strategic nightmare: it threatens to leave Europe isolated, powerless, and exposed.
Ukraine as the Proxy Battlefield
Across the past two years, European rhetoric has shifted from defense of Ukrainian sovereignty toward the more ambitious goal of “strategic defeat” of Russia. European officials now speak openly of weakening Russia militarily for decades to come, shrinking its influence, and reshaping Eurasian power structures.
Yet European states have largely avoided direct sacrifice. Their strategy depends on Ukrainian manpower and lives, while Europe provides selective financial and military support calibrated to keep the war going—but not enough to change the balance. The result is a battlefield of attrition in which Ukrainians die, Russians endure, and Europeans calculate.
This is the heart of Putin’s accusation: Europe is willing to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. The war, he argues, is being conducted less for Kyiv’s independence than for European geopolitical vanity and American strategic distraction.
Europe’s Fear of Peace
Why would Europe resist a ceasefire?
Analysts identify three core motives:
1. A truce would be a political humiliation
Peace would force European leaders to admit:
- sanctions failed to collapse the Russian economy,
- the Ukrainian counteroffensives stalled,
- and Western defense myths were shattered.
2. A frozen conflict strengthens Russia’s long-term position
A ceasefire would allow Moscow to consolidate territorial gains and rebuild strength, undermining narratives of Western superiority.
3. The war justifies European integration
European defense expansion, energy realignment, and political control mechanisms are all built on the war-crisis justification. Peace threatens elite agendas.
In this sense, the war has become a governance tool, not a defense mission.
Putin, Trump, and the Geopolitical Trap Facing Europe
What alarms European strategists is less Putin’s threat and more the possibility that Trump might reach a deal with Moscow that leaves Europe excluded. This scenario leaves European leaders without strategic direction, without military capacity, and without the moral high ground.
International observers describe Europe’s mindset as “strategic panic disguised as moral outrage.”
While Europe demands total victory, Russia positions itself as ready for conditional settlement, and the United States signals willingness to test diplomatic pathways.
The Bankruptcy of European Elites
The Ukraine war has turned into a referendum on European leadership. The verdict is harsh. Europe’s political classes appear:
- unable to lead
- afraid to compromise
- incapable of independent strategy
- unwilling to pay the real price of war
- terrified of public backlash
The result is paralysis disguised as principle. The more the war exposes their weakness, the more aggressively they double down.
Putin’s message to Europe, therefore, was not merely a threat—it was an accusation:
You are not fighting for Ukraine; you are fighting for the survival of your collapsing political order.
What Comes Next
Europe now faces three bleak options:
- Pursue escalation, risking direct conflict it cannot win.
- Accept negotiations, confessing strategic and moral failure.
- Watch the U.S. negotiate without them, confirming geopolitical irrelevance.
Putin’s warning and Trump’s NSS share a common subtext:
Europe has lost control of the war it helped create.
The continent that once preached diplomacy now rejects it. The powers that once defined peace now sabotage it. And the leaders who once claimed moral superiority now cling to the battlefield because negotiation would expose their bankruptcy.
As the war enters its fourth year, the world must confront the most unsettling conclusion of all:
The greatest threat to Europe today may not be Russia—but Europe’s own leaders, trapped in illusions, incapable of compromise, and willing to gamble with continental security to avoid political collapse.
Europe’s problem is no longer Russia. Europe’s problem is Europe.
Europe now stands perilously suspended between ambition and illusion. What began as a united front to defend Ukraine has mutated into a geopolitical crusade driven less by strategy and more by political vanity — a quest to impose a “strategic defeat” on Russia without the military, economic, or diplomatic means to achieve it.
Instead of pursuing a negotiated end to a war that has already shattered Ukraine’s infrastructure, drained Europe’s treasuries, and militarized the continent at a pace unseen since 1945, European leaders have doubled down on a proxy-war mindset: prolong the conflict, escalate weapon supplies, reject territorial compromise, and hope Moscow eventually collapses under pressure. The gamble has failed.
Rather than weakening Russia, sanctions have boomeranged into recessionary pressures across Europe, energy insecurity, and industrial decline. Rather than isolating Moscow, Europe has isolated itself from the emerging global order, as the BRICS bloc expands and non-Western powers refuse to join the Western embargo.
Instead of strengthening security, NATO expansion has intensified confrontation. And instead of empowering Kyiv, Europe has trapped Ukraine in a war it cannot win outright — then blocked peace proposals when they threatened to succeed. In this context,
Trump’s accusation that Europe is “sabotaging peace to fight to the last Ukrainian” resonates more loudly than European leaders would like to admit.
The tragedy is that diplomacy is no longer simply an option — it is the only remaining lifeline. The longer Europe pursues the mirage of total victory, the closer it drifts toward strategic collapse: strained militaries, depleted weapon stockpiles, fractured alliances, collapsing public support, and rising nationalist politics tearing the EU from within. Europe’s leaders now confront a stark dilemma: negotiate while negotiation is still possible, or continue a path of escalation that could end not with Russian defeat, but with European irrelevance — or worse, devastation.
Europe’s problem is not Russia. Europe’s problem is Europe—broken, divided, and unsure of its own survival.
Acknowledgement: AI tools were used for background research and editorial refinement. All ideas, analysis, and conclusions in this article are exclusively those of the author.
