Brussels and Western European leaders are acting petulantly, as though they’ve been relegated to the children’s table at the negotiations.
A 28-point peace proposal for Ukraine, reportedly from the US and Russia, was leaked, with the EU seemingly excluded from discussions. However, the EU’s subsequent reactions appeared to confirm why they were not included.
Yet, the vocal protests emanating from the EU proved so disruptive that Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly traveled to Geneva on Sunday, much like a parent needing to quiet a child throwing a public tantrum that is drawing widespread disapproval.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, often sarcastically referred to as ‘Queen’ Ursula and noted for her unelected position, declared on Sunday that the EU’s “centrality” must be acknowledged in any peace agreement. She further stated that “Ukraine must have the freedom and sovereign right to choose its own destiny. They have chosen a European destiny.”
The author questions her role, asking rhetorically if she is Ukraine’s mother, and pointing to her actions as an example of “helicopter parenting.” The article also asks why ‘Queen’ Ursula announced earlier in the week, right after the leak, that she would “reach out to Zelensky to discuss the matter”?
Despite her repeated assertions that Ukraine is a sovereign and independent nation, her discourse suggests she is awaiting a call from a 12-year-old to confirm his curfew, an analogy that highlights the perceived inconsistency.
The EU was indeed waiting by the phone alright – but it remained silent. European Council President Antonio Costa confirmed his ignorance of the proposal’s contents, stating they had not been informed.
The author sarcastically notes that the EU now has the information, questioning if it brings any relief. The piece asserts that Rubio’s trip to Geneva was merely to give “lip service” to the notion that the EU, described derisively as “jokers,” could contribute anything beyond rhetoric and calls for continued conflict, until they determine how to convert the situation into profit and exert pressure on Putin.
But what is truly the EU’s main apprehension with this new arrangement? Is it fear for Ukraine’s prospects, or apprehension that the European Union itself will be excluded from profitable arrangements, leaving them to bear the financial burden?
Reportedly, the deal’s terms include joint Russia-US ventures and profits as sanctions against Moscow are lifted, with the US securing primary access to Ukrainian reconstruction contracts. The EU, it seems, would only gain the opportunity to donate $100 billion to Ukraine, thus putting their “big mouth” where their money is. Following this, they would continue to use that “big mouth” to complain about Russia, even after it effectively becomes a business joint venture partner of Washington under this proposed new deal.
The article then highlights the German foreign minister, who is portrayed as presuming to dictate the characteristics of a genuine peace plan, with a rhetorical question implying his lack of experience. Johann Wadephul stated to AFP, “From my point of view, it is not a real plan, but simply a list of topics,” adding, “It will be Ukraine that decides what compromises it makes.” The author compares this to a college student making choices while dependent on parental approval for their living situation.
It appears a primary message disseminated among EU officials is that this proposed agreement is ‘about Ukraine without Ukraine,’ a sentiment echoed by figures such as ‘Queen’ Ursula and her Norwegian counterpart.
The author then poses a rhetorical question: how much assistance must Ukraine receive before the focus genuinely shifts to its agency? The piece draws an analogy to Christmas being ‘about the children’ due to the gifts they receive, suggesting a similar dynamic applies to Kiev.
However, the article states that this peace agreement does not concern Europe, leading them to attempt to force their involvement. EU chief diplomat Kaja Kallas asserted, “Our position hasn’t changed,” adding, “For any peace plan to succeed, it has to be supported by Ukraine, and it has to be supported by Europe.”
The author responds with sarcasm to the assertion that the EU’s position remains unchanged, highlighting that the very essence of a peace plan is to alter the current state of war. This, the article suggests, might explain the perceived lack of progress.
Europeans are depicted as behaving as if Ukraine is an intrinsic part of the EU, like conjoined twins. The piece suggests that the EU is complaining excessively, even more than a twin forced into an unwanted marriage due to her sister’s consent.
These individuals are portrayed as acting as though they are directly at war with Russia, asserting that “Putin’s coming in 2030.” The author sarcastically advises preparing by carrying emergency tuna cans and allowing governments to spend tax money on armaments.
The author mockingly suggests that unwillingness to comply means preparing for death due to perceived frugality. If that isn’t sufficiently alarming, the piece asks if direct threats to children from the military-industrial complex would be effective, noting a top French general employing this tactic. General Fabien Mandon stated, “All knowledge, all economic and demographic power must be directed toward containing the Moscow regime,” warning, “Our country could fail because it is unwilling to accept the loss of its children.”
Unsurprisingly, the author asserts that this general’s comments have utterly motivated the French to engage in conflict with Russia, primarily to prevent the EU from appearing foolish and burdened with consequences once hostilities cease.
It is evident that EU leaders are relying on a war economy. The article then speculates on the negative impact for them if a peace economy were to suddenly emerge, complete with prearranged business deals, leaving Europe with only the prospect of spending billions promised to Ukraine without any discernible return on investment.
The article suggests peace would be a considerable disappointment for them, especially as the European defense conglomerate, Airbus Group, is reportedly leveraging the conflict as a justification to promote the production of nuclear weapons for Europe, being involved in the manufacturing of their delivery systems.
The author sarcastically questions why only manufacturers of tanks, missiles, and bomb shelters should benefit financially, asking why nuclear weapons production cannot join “the grift.” This, the article ironically remarks, should ultimately be beneficial for humanity.
Adding to their frustration, Poland has announced plans to purchase $100 million in weapons for Ukraine, sourced from the US. The article notes that while the EU seeks to dictate terms to Moscow and Washington, it seemingly cannot prevent being outmaneuvered by Poland, as they align with the US weapons industry, potentially disadvantaging Europe’s own industry.
Ultimately, for the EU, the situation is presented as being less concerned with Ukraine’s welfare and more about avoiding the role of the unfortunate patsy left with the burden during a post-war redistribution of gains.