[Salon] Europe and Ukraine: Coalition of the Ambiguous or Lunatic Asylum? - Guest Post by Anatol Lieven

It should always have been obvious that by making an enemy of post-Soviet Russia, the European Union and Britain were ensuring their dependence on the United States, and making themselves unable to resist even its most illegal and immoral actions - as demonstrated by their approach to Israel's war on Gaza and the US attacks on Iran and Venezuela. By half-promising to send troops to Ukraine - but only with guaranteed US support - European governments are making their dependence on the US total. The price of that may now be coming, in a US seizure of Greenland that the Europeans cannot significantly oppose; for to do so would require threatening to inflict real pain on the US, in the form of the closure of US bases in Europe and an economic embargo against Israel that would force the US massively to support the Israeli economy. But of course the Europeans cannot do that, if they are determined to commit themselves to Ukraine. So to defend a country that is not a member of NATO or the EU, the EU and NATO would have to accept the seizure of the territory of an actual NATO member, Denmark. If this happens, it will be a humiliation that will make them the laughing stock of the world. The blow to European pride, prestige and self-confidence will be unfathomable. The image of the EU as a defender of the "rules-based order" has long been shredded in the eyes of the world. The loss of Greenland would shred it in the eyes of Europeans themselves. Here is a longer version of my article on the Paris talks and their implications for Greenland (https://unherd.com/newsroom/europes-security-guarantees-for-ukraine-ring-hollow/:) Europe and Ukraine: Coalition of the Ambiguous or Lunatic Asylum? Anatol Lieven The joint statement by the European “Coalition of the Willing” for Ukraine after Tuesday’s meeting in Paris on peace terms for Ukraine contains some critical ambiguities. These are presumably intended to make the future Western military commitments to Ukraine strong enough to reassure Kyiv and allow Zelensky to claim victory, but weak enough to avoid both a commitment by the US to go to war with Russia in defence of Ukraine (which Trump is very unlikely to give), and an unambiguous commitment by the Europeans actually to place significant armed forces in Ukraine. Even without such a commitment however, present British and European strategy towards Ukraine is running some enormous risks - in the longer run, of war with Russia, but most immediately when it comes to any ability to deter a US seizure of Greenland. Most significantly, this statement was only by the leaders of the Coalition. US envoy Steve Witkoff spoke of “great progress” in Paris, but also of the need for “certain compromises” on security guarantees. The key passage in the statement reads as follows: “A Multinational Force for Ukraine made up from contributions from willing nations within the framework of the Coalition, to support the rebuilding of Ukraine's armed forces and support deterrence. Coordinated military planning has been conducted to prepare for reassurance measures in the air, at sea and on land and for the regeneration of the armed forces of Ukraine…These elements will be European-led, with the involvement also of non-European members of the Coalition, and the proposed support [my emphasis] of the US.” Note that this only talks of “proposed” US support, and of “reassurance measures” without saying exactly what - and even more importantly where - they will be. This is significantly vaguer than the European draft statement leaked to AFP before the meeting. It allowed German Chancellor Friedrich Merz for example to make the following deeply comical “commitment”: "Germany will keep contributing politically, financially and militarily. This could for example include deploying forces to Ukraine on neighboring NATO territory after a ceasefire." If you think that “deploying forces to Ukraine on neighboring NATO territory” is transparent doublespeak, I would have to agree with you. Keir Starmer appeared to go much further, stating that the joint declaration “paves the way for the legal framework under which British, French and partner forces could operate on Ukrainian soil…following a ceasefire, the UK and France will establish “military hubs” across Ukraine and build protected facilities for weapons and military equipment.” This could however mean only NATO weapons dumps guarded by small numbers of NATO troops, rather than substantial ground forces that Britain and France cannot in fact provide without dedicating their entire armies to the effort. If so, it is just conceivable that Moscow could agree; but Russia would demand precisely the sort of concrete, formal and detailed limits on these forces that the “Coalition of the Willing” so far appears determined not to provide. The Europeans clearly think that even the limited US endorsement they received in Paris represents a significant success for them. It may however turn out to be a very Pyrrhic victory, and not only because Russia is likely to reject any such peace framework, and to continue the war. It is also because US support for the “Coalition of the Willing” will come at a price, and the name of that price could be Greenland. In a joint statement on the sidelines of the Paris talks in response to US threats, six European leaders declared that "Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland." Within hours however the White House stated that, “[A]cquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.” Danish premier Mette Frederiksen said on Monday that if the US took Greenland by force, NATO itself would collapse. In these circumstances, it seems truly weird for European countries to be asking for US guarantees for European troops in Ukraine, that would be totally dependent on US support. For if dependence on the US over Ukraine forces the Europeans to acquiesce in a US seizure of the territory of a European NATO member, the humiliation would be so deep that the very idea of Europe as a significant factor in world affairs would vanish. If they resist, NATO will indeed collapse, and Ukraine would be doomed. We who have lived through the past generation can understand how European governments have ended in this grotesque position. Future generations may see it as evidence of collective insanity. Dr Anatol Lieven, Andrew Bacevich Chair in US Diplomatic History. Director, Eurasia Program, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.