0
UNLIKE 1914, Europe is not sleepwalking into war. It is tempting fate by preparing for one with its eyes wide open and sharply focused on the hostilities between Russia and Ukraine — where the latter has lately struck a powerful blow with audacious drone strikes aimed at its foe’s offensive airborne capability.
Volodymyr Zelensky has claimed that over 40 strategic bombers were damaged or destroyed across at least four Russian air bases in Operation Spider Web, which had been planned for more than 18 months. Apparently, lorry drivers, who thought they were conveying wooden cabins, carried the concealed drones close to their targets. Russia has acknowledged the ‘terrorist’ attack without specifying its possibly substantial losses (much like India after last month’s uncalled-for clash with Pakistan).
It’s hardly likely, however, that Kyiv’s smart stratagem will propel the belligerents towards any peaceful settlement. The Ukrainian strikes followed what was purportedly the biggest Russian drone and missile attack against its involuntary adversary — which nonetheless resulted in fewer casualties than the daily dose of destruction perpetrated by Israel in Gaza.
Overall, the European war has cost more lives than the even more reprehensible, and largely one-sided, Middle East conflict. The obvious question (in both cases) ought to revolve around how the war can be halted and a judicious settlement secured. The Trump administration, to Europe’s horror, has been toying with the idea of allowing Vladimir Putin to retain most of Russia’s territorial gains as part of any peace deal.
Europe’s war plans portend a disaster.
That would be profoundly unfair to Ukraine, which would reasonably prefer to hold on to the borders it secured when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. But the tussle over Ukraine stretches far past the advent of the USSR, and Putin’s selective reading of history has been transformed into a narrative that struggles to come to terms with 21st-century realities.
Much the same could, however, also be said about his putative adversaries, coalesced in an offensive organisation that can no longer be confident about the predilections of its American sponsor. During his previous presidency, Donald Trump threatened to exit Nato. This time he has not spelt out similar intent, but is focused on the idea of allies squandering more resources on their military preparedness. Many of these allies seem willing to comply.
A small island off the west coast of Europe is choosing to invest billions of dollars into weapons systems to achieve ‘war-fighting readiness’. According to its defence secretary, the UK’s posturing will “send a strong message to Moscow” as well as to Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang. Perhaps we should all be wary of a nation that has proudly served as a cash laundry for Russian oligarchs, among equally duplicitous ‘investors’ from the Gulf and elsewhere.
Many European nations fall in a similar category, determined to attract appreciation of a White House that tends to disregard overtures that don’t include a luxury Boeing. A so far small bunch of others go the other way by kowtowing to the Kremlin.
Hungary’s Viktor Orbán has absurdly described the liar in the White House as a ‘truth serum’. Slovakia’s Robert Fico is similarly inclined. Notwithstanding the neo-fascist antecedents of her party, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni is comfortable waltzing with Euro-liberals as well as Trump without winking towards Putin. But from Portugal to Poland, far right political formations are making hay while the sun shines in Washington. Late last month, the Chega party emerged as the main opposition in Lisbon 50 years after its dictatorship was overthrown, and in Poland this week Karol Nawrocki edged out Warsaw mayor Rafal Trzaskowski after a Maga endorsement.
Meanwhile, at the Shangri-la Dialogue in Singapore, not long after Trump’s defence secretary Pete Hegseth admonished America’s Asia-Pacific allies for not stepping up military spending in the face of the purported threat posed by China, German defence chief Carsten Breuer declared that Nato members faced a Russian attack within four years. Just days earlier, Chancellor Friedrich Merz was in Lithuania to mark the first permanent deployment of German personnel since World War II.
It is not hard to imagine the message such tactics convey to Moscow. An all-out war would be disastrous for Russia and the rest of Europe alike, but one cannot help wondering whether the combination of European war-mongering and Putin’s obduracy could translate into a self-fulfilling prophecy of continent-wide belligerence.
Europe’s focus should be on better diplomacy than Trump and his minions can offer, so that a clash of civilisations can be averted and the continent’s limited resources can be devoted to redressing socioeconomic deficiencies instead of preparing for an unwinnable war.
Published in Dawn, June 4th, 2025
