US President Donald Trump suddenly showed Ukrainian leader Voldymi Zelensky not showing him at the door following a fierce exchange at the White House on Friday. Trump’s angry words to Zelensky were aired for listening to all across America and undoubtedly shocked many of his viewers.
“You’re living and gambling for millions of people. You’re gambling with World War II. You’re gambling with World War II,” Trump said. “You’re not winning. You’re not winning this. But you’re going to either make a deal or we’re going out.”
Just as shocked as the American TV audience that Trump’s dull “make a deal or you’re making your own message,” was the US European allies who pledged their support for Zelensky and rushed to blame Trump.
European Union chiefs Ursula von der Reyen and Antonio Costa collaborated on tweets. You are never alone, dear President @Zelenskyyua. ”
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said, “Ukraine, Spain is standing with you.” His Polish counterpart Donald Tass wrote: “Dear Ukrainian friend, you are not alone.”
Registered German Prime Minister Friedrich Merz sent a direct tweet to “Dear Voldymiler” and vowed to stand with Ukraine “in an age of goodness and tests.”
Emmanuel Macron, Olaf Scholz and Kiel’s Stage were similarly rich.
Kaja Karas, the EU’s chief diplomat and former prime minister, is the former Estonian Prime Minister, who said, “Ukraine is Europe! We are by Ukraine. We will strengthen our support for Ukraine so that they can continue to fight back against the invaders. Today, it has become clear that the free world needs a new leader. It is up to the Europeans to take this challenge.”
Most of them were scheduled to meet Ukrainian leaders in London on March 2nd. Zelensky was set to win the honorable host for King Charles III at the Sandringham Country Retreat.
In a welcome to London on Saturday, Zelensky was handed a £2.6 billion check (loan). This is a down payment in the UK that “stalk with you as long as it takes to protect the integrity of your country.”
An article in Nikki Asia’s opinion portrays Trump’s peace initiative as “forces him to recognize the land occupied by Kiev and deny his ambition to join NATO.”
Similarly, Trump declared that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (WHO) “has brought peace for our time.” However, this ultimately led to the outbreak of World War II in March 1939 when the Nazis marched into Czechoslovakia. Similarly, Richard Nixon’s 1973 “Peace with Honor” contract in Vietnam led to the collapse of Saigon just two years later. ”
Perhaps in this British-inspired charade (Nickake owns and channels the age of finance), Zelensky is assigned the role of Churchill.
The only voice of dissent in Europe was the voice of Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban. Today, President Donald Trump was standing brave for peace. …Thank you, President!
And NATO executive director Mark Latte, who spoke to the BBC, whom he might be worried about losing his job, said, “I said: I think we’ll have to find a way for Voldimer to restore Donald Trump’s relationship with the US administration. That’s important going forward.”
Which European stance and views will win? It is determined by reality. Just pick the top three, not the will and delusional thoughts of Eurocrot, such as von der Leyen, Karas, British, French and German leaders.
Although there is no Ukraine’s NATO membership, territorial concessions, or US security guarantees for NATO Article 5, Trump’s basic peace plan, which does not rely on repairing US-Russia relations and repairing new European security structures, will be wary of World War if European victory continues a continuous war or European NATO forces intervene directly.
Europe today has no army that can successfully confront a full-scale Russian onslaught without relying on the US military and the US nuclear umbrella. And even a sustained conflict recontract program is not capable of that.
Even in the 1980s, when the writer served in the German army (west) with its strength at the peak of half a million soldiers and 7,000 tanks, it was a defence of Western Europe that the United States had never thought of before. Today it’s a dangerous fantasy.
The prestigious Kiel Institute for Germany’s World Economy (IFW) published a detailed study in September 2024 to prove this point (“Destinations of War: Slow Re-Sold Re-Soldiers of Europe and Germany are suitable for Russia”) and February 2025 (European Defense Without the US: First Estimation of What You Need”).
Here’s a summary of the 2024 survey:
Germany did not significantly increase its procurement in February 2022 after a year and a half. We accelerated that in the second half of 2023. Given Germany’s massive disarmament and current procurement speeds over the past few decades, we can see that in some key weapons systems, Germany will not achieve the armed level of 2004 for about 100 years. Taking into account the weapons’ commitment to Ukraine, Germany’s capabilities are diminished.
For the record, Germany currently has 180,000 active personnel (61,000 in the Army, 27,000 Air Force, 16,000 Navy, and the remaining support staff). 350 major tanks compared to 2,398 in 2004. 120 howitzers compared to 978 in 2004. 218 fighter jets compared to 423 in 2004. At this time, you cannot win a single combat-response division of 20,000.
Similarly, other European NATO forces lack human resources and equipment, and there is no early change. That includes the UK. The UK Ministry of Defense last released detailed figures in July 2024 on the number of personnel trained in combat-response roles. British Army: 18,398. Royal Air Force: 21,915.
Meanwhile, the Russian military is expected to reach a target strength of 1.5 million by mid-2025, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The only non-US member of the same general class is a turkey, with 511,000 weapons.
The Kiel Institute estimates that Europe needs to increase its 300,000 troops and approximately $250 billion in defense spending. Spending seems viable in the short term. That’s not the case with an increase in talent.
And the very important role the US plays at NATO, planning, coordination and commanders of large multinational forces, have not been replaced for many years. It also does not have real-time tactical intelligence and targeting features.
It is difficult to believe that even the most wary European leaders, by themselves, are “strategic independence” (such as German Mertz), are not aware of these facts.
And the same Meltz is eager to launch a German Taurus missile at Russia, but if the US can’t back him up, he will never think of such courage again.
Europe can dream of strategic autonomy after peace is created in Ukraine. But it does not have the military ability to ignore or undermine the Trump Peace Plan. In fact, there is nothing else.
Uwe von Parpart is the editor-in-chief of Asia Times.
