Source: Global Times
The summit between the U.S. and Russian leaders was held in Alaska on August 15. Although they could not sit at the negotiation table in Anchorage, from the joint statement by the 26 EU countries on August 12 to the U.S.-EU-Ukraine video conference on August 13, the EU and major European powers have never stopped efforts to coordinate "Western positions." In this process, the EU expressed its own demands and solidarity, but also exposed structural dilemmas in the Ukraine-Russia conflict and European security issues.
Evidently, Europe's anxiety about being bypassed is constantly increasing, yet it has to face the reality of being powerless in the U.S.-Russia confrontation. The core demands of Europe at present can be summarized as "participation rights" and "interest protection." As German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said, "coordinating positions" essentially aims to prevent the U.S. and Russia from bypassing Europe during the Alaska meeting and unilaterally deciding Ukraine's fate. German media generally worry that Europe faces a "coercive peace" imposed by the U.S. and Russia, and this concern is not unfounded: since the current U.S. administration took office, its "transactional diplomacy" style often catches allies off guard, and even slight disobedience leads to punishment, ultimately forcing them to submit.
Major EU powers are unwilling to let their fate be decided by others, emphasizing that "diplomatic solutions must protect Ukraine's and Europe's major security interests." However, such appeals and cries have little real impact on the direction of U.S.-Russia negotiations. Over three years of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, Europe has shouldered the heavy burden of military aid to Ukraine, yet it has become increasingly marginalized in the political resolution process. The fundamental reason lies in: militarily, the NATO system determines the U.S.'s absolute dominance over European security, and Europe essentially does not have a truly "own" military force; economically, the EU's sanctions against Russia in energy areas have repeatedly widened internal rifts; diplomatically, the EU's "unanimity" decision-making mechanism severely restricts operational efficiency.
Despite this, the anxiety of being bypassed still prompts Europe to carry out "emergency diplomacy." But during this process, it repeatedly sends contradictory signals, reflecting Europe's urgent yet helpless situation.
First, there is a coexistence of the demand for security autonomy and dependency inertia. It loudly claims that "European interests must be decided by Europeans," but the hope for solving the problem still rests on the U.S.-Russia talks. This expression reflects the EU's "security dependence paradox": on one hand, it pursues strategic autonomy, but on the other, it cannot escape the NATO framework.
Second, the paradox of diplomatic priority and military investment. Recently, Europe has clearly shifted towards supporting diplomatic solutions, but at the same time, the EU continues to introduce new sanctions against Russia. This gives the impression that the EU lacks specific plans for resolving the conflict peacefully.
Third, attempting to demonstrate alliance unity, but hiding actual divisions. Hungary did not attend the EU's common statement and claimed that Europe is "not at the table" but still "shouting loudly." Additionally, only six heads of state participated in the video conference with the U.S. on August 13, exposing the incompleteness of European unity.
Fourth, the dilemma of pressuring the U.S. and "using strength against strength." Europe tries to send a signal to the U.S. government that "it must listen to its allies' opinions" and use this to pressure Russia, but this is difficult to achieve. Because, from Europe's perspective, the Ukraine-Russia conflict is the entire issue, but from the U.S. perspective, it is just part of the issue, and the U.S. focuses on how to make broader "deals" with Russia.
Europe's sense of powerlessness is not solely due to insufficient strength. In fact, regarding the Ukraine issue, Europe has failed to convert its own strength into participation rights, let alone gain the initiative. The underlying problem mainly lies in three structural flaws.
First, institutional inefficiency hinders strategic implementation. The EU needs the unanimous agreement of 27 countries to form a common foreign policy stance. In the Ukraine-Russia conflict, each country has different geopolitical endowments and interest demands, especially when it comes to energy and economic interests, conflicts are normal. A European think tank pointed out that the average time required for the EU to formulate policies toward Russia is three times that of the United States. This efficiency gap directly leads to the loss of initiative in international negotiations.
Second, the "path dependence" of the security architecture. The NATO system is the structural framework through which Europe has long outsourced defense to the U.S., serving both as a security guarantee and a security constraint. Although the EU has tried to establish its own defense forces, its rapid reaction forces still rely on U.S. intelligence and logistics support. Most European countries' high-precision weapons require U.S. satellite guidance, and this technological dependence keeps its strategic autonomy at the level of "wish."
Third, political culture is difficult to adapt to changing times. Europe's "consensus politics" emphasizes compromise and gradualism, a model that sometimes struggles to deal with rapidly changing crises. Under the EU's "collectivist" political structure, there is a lack of leader-like political figures who can consistently demonstrate leadership, making it difficult to keep up with the changes in today's global political decision-making landscape and practices.
Europe's anxious shouts and contradictory signals are essentially the manifestation of its structural dilemmas. Depending on NATO for security, suffering from institutional inefficiency, and facing irreconcilable divisions within, Europe bears the huge cost of the Ukraine-Russia conflict yet is powerless to lead the diplomatic resolution process, and is even directly excluded from the "table." This predicament not only solidifies the asymmetrical relationship between the U.S. and Europe, but also exposes the significant gap between the EU's strategic autonomy goals and reality. In the turbulent international arena, if Europe cannot break the habit of security dependence or overcome decision-making institutional restrictions, its vision of "own destiny being determined by itself" may still remain unattainable. (The author is a researcher at Shanghai International Studies University and the chairman of the Shanghai Institute for Global Governance and Regional Country Studies.)
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7538942978669199906/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the [top/like] or [bottom/dislike] buttons below.