I am no expert whatsoever, but yes, the things you are saying sound right. Obviously, countries like Hungary are a big problem when it comes to efforts at EU unity. So rewriting the EU laws to allow the majority to make the decision seems to make sense. As for the unity they demonstrated at the White House this weekend, it's good that Ukraine and the EU showed some solidarity. But did it move the dial at all? Some writers, like Mark Landler, in the New York Times this morning, seem to think it didn't. In the end, Ukraine and the EU may need to look to Asia and Africa for support, if the USA is unwilling to provide enough of it.
This sounds right on target. Timothy Snyder is one among many writers and historians who’ve been making this point. So where does this leave Ukraine and Europe? How will they deal with it?
Thanks for your comment Mona. And definitely, Timothy Snyder is just one. Another thinker I really enjoy on this topic in a similar vein is M. Gessen.( https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/13/opinion/trump-putin-ukraine-alaska.html) As for how Ukraine and Europe can deal with it... A few parts I think:
1) In talking with analysts and officials in Europe, one theme that came up repeatedly is that Europe and Ukraine have to act as one. One person I spoke with, longtime foreign correspondent in Ukraine Jan Balliauw, said that the Trump administration fundamentally does not understand how the conclusion to the war in Ukraine is directly linked to the security of the rest of Europe, due to this history of Russian imperialism. We saw this unity at the White House this weekend. It's much easier for two imperially-minded leaders (Trump and Putin) to pick off smaller individual states when they don't act in unison.
2) The EU needs reform on foreign and security policy, and fast. Juraj Macjin, a defense analyst at a think tank in Brussels, told me that the EU should reform the foreign affairs portion of the EU so that decisions don't all need to be made unanimously. Right now, all decisions having to do with foreign and security policy have to get the agreement of every member. This means even a small state, or one that's aligned with Putin such as Hungary, can stop the EU from quickly acting in unilateral fashion. Basically, it's an argument for the EU to act a bit more similarly in it's external policy as the U.S. and Russia, i.e., quickly and with force. This would probably also mean a strong EU executive who could act unilaterally in this 19th century-like environment.
Thanks Ruben! That's a great point and something I had not considered while writing the piece. While smaller European countries have long been objects of imperialism, especially in Eastern Europe, that definitely has not been the case with larger European powers until recently. Your comment makes me think of De Gaulle's quote: "Western Europe has become, without even realizing it, an American protectorate..."
I am no expert whatsoever, but yes, the things you are saying sound right. Obviously, countries like Hungary are a big problem when it comes to efforts at EU unity. So rewriting the EU laws to allow the majority to make the decision seems to make sense. As for the unity they demonstrated at the White House this weekend, it's good that Ukraine and the EU showed some solidarity. But did it move the dial at all? Some writers, like Mark Landler, in the New York Times this morning, seem to think it didn't. In the end, Ukraine and the EU may need to look to Asia and Africa for support, if the USA is unwilling to provide enough of it.
This sounds right on target. Timothy Snyder is one among many writers and historians who’ve been making this point. So where does this leave Ukraine and Europe? How will they deal with it?
Thanks for your comment Mona. And definitely, Timothy Snyder is just one. Another thinker I really enjoy on this topic in a similar vein is M. Gessen.( https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/13/opinion/trump-putin-ukraine-alaska.html) As for how Ukraine and Europe can deal with it... A few parts I think:
1) In talking with analysts and officials in Europe, one theme that came up repeatedly is that Europe and Ukraine have to act as one. One person I spoke with, longtime foreign correspondent in Ukraine Jan Balliauw, said that the Trump administration fundamentally does not understand how the conclusion to the war in Ukraine is directly linked to the security of the rest of Europe, due to this history of Russian imperialism. We saw this unity at the White House this weekend. It's much easier for two imperially-minded leaders (Trump and Putin) to pick off smaller individual states when they don't act in unison.
2) The EU needs reform on foreign and security policy, and fast. Juraj Macjin, a defense analyst at a think tank in Brussels, told me that the EU should reform the foreign affairs portion of the EU so that decisions don't all need to be made unanimously. Right now, all decisions having to do with foreign and security policy have to get the agreement of every member. This means even a small state, or one that's aligned with Putin such as Hungary, can stop the EU from quickly acting in unilateral fashion. Basically, it's an argument for the EU to act a bit more similarly in it's external policy as the U.S. and Russia, i.e., quickly and with force. This would probably also mean a strong EU executive who could act unilaterally in this 19th century-like environment.
Curious to hear your thoughts!
Great analysis! Quite an irony of history that Europe is now the 'object' of that imperialism
Thanks Ruben! That's a great point and something I had not considered while writing the piece. While smaller European countries have long been objects of imperialism, especially in Eastern Europe, that definitely has not been the case with larger European powers until recently. Your comment makes me think of De Gaulle's quote: "Western Europe has become, without even realizing it, an American protectorate..."