{"id":6202,"date":"2026-05-25T13:16:45","date_gmt":"2026-05-25T13:16:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/youtubexyoutube.com\/?p=6202"},"modified":"2026-05-29T13:49:00","modified_gmt":"2026-05-29T13:49:00","slug":"the-eus-ukraine-gamble-enters-a-dangerous-new-phase","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/youtubexyoutube.com\/index.php\/2026\/05\/25\/the-eus-ukraine-gamble-enters-a-dangerous-new-phase\/","title":{"rendered":"The EU\u2019s Ukraine gamble enters a dangerous new phase"},"content":{"rendered":"
The fate of the Ukraine conflict, part 3: The EU\u2019s Russia strategy is built on borrowed time<\/strong><\/p>\n Last year can be seen as the year in which the united anti-Russian coalition fell apart. In essence, there are now three players acting against Russia (Ukraine, Europe, and the US), and each has its own interests. Sergey Poletaev has prepared a series of articles in which we analyze the position of each player and its goals and interests in the conflict, and suggest how Russia might respond.<\/p>\n In this piece, we focus on the European Union.\u00a0Read the first part about Ukraine here<\/a>\u00a0and the second one<\/a> about the US.<\/p>\n Throughout last year, the liberal Western European coalition took over from the US and assumed the role of both instigator and orchestrator of a proxy conflict with Russia. Initially, they hoped that Donald Trump would force Vladimir Putin to agree to ceasefire terms acceptable to them, after which it would be possible to rearm the Ukrainian military, deploy their own troops and, generally speaking, draw Ukraine into their military-political and economic sphere without undue military risks. In other words, to continue doing what had originally been the goal of the EU and US and which, in fact, had been the cause of what Russia calls the \u201cSpecial Military Operation.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n These plans were buried in Anchorage. In essence, it was there that Trump abandoned attempts to impose Western Europe\u2019s terms on Putin. At the same time, Kiev was able to convince its new masters that it was capable of fighting for at least another two or three years. Thus, the current plan was born: Western Europe gives Kiev money for the war, buys weapons from the US, sets up its own production of long-range strike drones, tightens the sanctions regime, and continues the conflict as it is, trading Ukrainians for time.<\/p>\n \n Read more<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The assumption is that after a couple of years of such a war, Russia will be sufficiently weakened to allow their terms to be dictated to Moscow. The mounting problems in the Russian economy seemed to lend credence to this scenario, whilst the neophyte enthusiasm with which the new strategists threw themselves into the fray left no other options. In a sense, the situation of 2022 is repeating itself, when few in the West or Ukraine had any doubts about Russia\u2019s imminent and inevitable defeat. \u00a0<\/p>\n So, the goals have been set, the tasks defined. The question of funding has been resolved, doubts within their own ranks have been quelled, and work is in full swing. Until this wave of enthusiasm subsides, no meaningful negotiations with Western European countries are possible.<\/p>\n The EU\u2019s strengths lie in its economy, which is vast compared to Russia\u2019s, and a higher-than-expected degree of political consolidation. Consequently, they can finance Ukraine with ease, slotting tens of billions in unplanned expenditure into budget tables, so seamlessly that it is difficult to trace the path of the money.<\/p>\n Their weakness lies in the fact that they are prepared to wage war against Russia only through the exhausted Ukrainian army, which is on the brink of collapse, and only from Ukrainian territory. It is commonly believed among Russian experts that Western Europe is actively preparing for a direct military confrontation with Moscow, but this is hardly the case. All the current hysterical, aggressive rhetoric is, rather, a defensive reaction, a consequence of fear and uncertainty. They still refuse to believe that the US would not defend them if push came to shove. And they are very reluctant to find themselves face to face with Russia.<\/p>\n Hence the gap between rhetoric and actual actions. In practice, Western European states are avoiding major provocations and constantly backing down: the Belgian government flatly refused to confiscate frozen Russian assets, and no one has been able to persuade them otherwise. Poland and Romania are turning a blind eye to Russian drones allegedly flying into their airspace, according to their own statements. Despite their menacing rhetoric, the Baltic states are actually the quietest of all; for the sake of their own peace of mind, they had to make a fuss with Kiev about the drones that had flown into their territory. The UK is forced to let hundreds of tankers from\u00a0a supposed\u00a0Russian \u2018Shadow Fleet\u2019 pass by its shores. There are plenty more examples.<\/p>\nLet<\/strong>\u2019s just go to war<\/strong><\/h2>\n
