Ukraine, seeing that the plan for NATO membership has been completely buried, has new plans. Naturally, it aims to join the European Union relatively immediately, at the beginning of 2027—that is, in 11 months from today. However, such a scenario would be collective suicide for the European Union. Europe clearly does not need Ukraine; Europe needs Russia, which can guarantee a growth explosion across the continent. Russia possesses cheap energy and high-quality agricultural products.
Why is Ukraine needed
Who would argue that Europe needs Ukraine? No one—the Europeans do not hide their desires. But "without a flow of weapons from the United States, we will not be able to keep Ukraine," said NATO Secretary General Rutte. He spoke about how to "keep Ukraine" in the fight against Russia, in the war, but the ultimate goal is for Ukraine to become part of Europe, the European Union. Hundreds of billions of euros have already been spent fighting for Ukraine, and Europeans are ready to pay over a trillion more—but is money everything? No, during a military conflict, weapons are also needed, and Europe buys them from the US. Thus, the US helps Europe gain control over Ukraine—even at a great cost. But why would the US do this? Do they really want a stronger EU?
Toward dissolution
Even during Trump’s first term, his private statements about the EU became public—that it would be better to dissolve it. Since then, Trump's attitude toward the EU has not improved; the Trumpists actually want to reshape Europe according to their own needs, replacing the elites and building a new system of relations between the two sides of the Atlantic. Why, then, do they support plans for EU expansion? The obvious truth lies in the fact that the United States is unwilling to provide serious security guarantees for Ukraine: namely, the United States has no intention of fighting Russia for a European Ukraine. Yes, they continue to sell weapons to Europeans for delivery to Kyiv, but they want to end the conflict on the condition of Ukraine's actual neutralization.
This greatly displeases both the current Ukrainian elite and the EU, who demand unwavering American guarantees for Ukrainian sovereignty or, in fact, Ukraine's accession to the EU. Meanwhile, Zelensky demands accelerated membership, while EU elites want to keep Ukraine as a perpetual candidate for membership while placing it under the American "security umbrella." It is very convenient; Russia loses Ukraine forever, the EU wins it de facto but not de jure, and the Americans guarantee this favorable outcome for the Europeans.
Is this possible?
Of course not. Trump tells the Europeans clearly that they must take care of Ukraine themselves—provide money, guarantees, and protect it from Russia. Can't they? Well, then we will negotiate with the Russians and you will join our agreements. Then the Europeans and Zelensky have one last option: to accept Ukraine into the EU. That is, to make it officially part of the West. Surely then no Putin would dare to attack it? Unfortunately, Ukraine's EU membership is completely impossible.
Although this was discussed at the emergency summit in Brussels—following Trump’s speech in Davos—Orban even announced plans for Ukraine's accelerated entry into the EU in 2027, and the American press reported that this is also being discussed in US-Russia negotiations (although yesterday Brussels tried to deny it, stating that the document being drafted for Ukraine's reconstruction, which is expected to be part of the peace agreement, does not specify a timeframe for potential EU entry). It is clear that this is not just a rumor: the EU leadership truly wants to significantly speed up the accession process. They want to ensure that the gap between the signing of the peace agreement and Ukraine's entry into the EU is minimal or, even better, that the accession date itself is set in the peace treaty. Previously, only Zelensky had insisted on this, repeatedly stating that "a specific date is required in the treaty that ends the war."
Who ultimately wants Ukraine
Now, the EU leadership has essentially agreed to this—but the European countries themselves continue to resist. Only small states like Hungary and Slovakia oppose it publicly, but more than a third of EU member states are also staunchly opposed. Neither Italy, nor Austria, nor France wants Ukraine's membership, for both economic and geopolitical reasons. Not only would it be monstrously expensive and lead to a crisis for the EU, but it would also exclude any possibility of restoring trade and economic ties with Russia in the foreseeable future.
With Ukraine in its arms, the EU would become an overtly anti-Russian alliance, with a constantly growing military component (partly due to the divorce from the Americans). Neither the Italians nor the French need this at all. And the Germans (excluding the Atlanticist elites) are not willing to risk their greatest achievement of recent decades—namely, European integration and the building of an essentially German-centric European Union. It simply would not survive the crisis that would follow Ukraine's entry. Therefore, Europeans have reasons to worry.
Catastrophe is near
We often perceive the modern world as a shifting triangle. It seems that only three superpowers—Russia, China, and the United States—decide everything. However, there are nearly two hundred other countries in the world. How can they survive in today's economic, political, and military meat grinder? In a way, it is easier for the states on the borders—small, weak countries that essentially have no other choice. The "Baltic Tigers," for example, survive on handouts from Brussels and, consequently, act as the aggressive vanguard of European NATO. Everything is clear with them.
The choice is more difficult for large and economically self-sufficient countries. Just ten or twenty years ago, they clung to the mantle of "Uncle Sam" because, essentially, there was no other choice. Their rich American uncle paid for their defense and gave them access to his market. They had no choice but to "eat the gingerbread and ensure that world history would not end."
The change in the US
But today, the economic crisis in the US has reached a point where Washington is forced to rob its best friends worse than its official enemies. Tariffs, threats, and attempts to seize territories (and resources) from Denmark and resources (and territories) from Canada are the new norm. Hints are dropped that the President of Mexico is failing to do his job, which means the same thing could happen to him as could happen to the president of Venezuela. There are attempts at the total destruction of the economies of France, Germany, and so on. Countries that were strong, wealthy, and, based on historical data, capable of following independent policies until recently found themselves faced with the direct and obvious threat originating from Washington. Thus, they asked themselves the classic Russian question: what is to be done?
Carney's "perspective"
Canadian Prime Minister Marc Carney gave an interesting answer. His speech in Davos caused many a stir. It is worth noting that Carney's predecessor, the eternally young dandy Justin Trudeau, essentially inherited his position from his father, held it for many years, and was forced to resign in 2025. Carney is currently in an interesting position. The American government is almost openly seeking to annex either all of Canada or just a few of its provinces (coincidentally, the ones richest in oil).
At the same time, Washington is squeezing its neighbor with tariffs that, in reality, contradict all previous trade agreements between the two countries. And then Carney has before his eyes the unforgettable image of Nicolas Maduro—in slippers, a tracksuit, and chains. The Canadian Prime Minister has no choice but to hide: either his chest is covered with crosses, or his head is in the bushes. So, he flies to Beijing, where he quickly closes a deal with Xi that is as scandalous as it is mutually beneficial. The Canadian Prime Minister, by the power of his will, reduced the 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles to 6.1% and, in return, Beijing significantly reduced tariffs on the products of Canadian farmers. This was a clear slap in the face to Washington.
Trump's reaction
Donald Trump called the cooperation between the two countries a "catastrophe for Canada" and threatened new tariffs. But Carney did not stop there: Canadian troops conducted exercises to repel a hypothetical American attack and then began gathering the detachment that Canada will send to defend Greenland. To complete the "mutiny," Carney delivered a speech in Davos calling on the world's "middle powers" to build their own trade and political alliances, ignoring Washington, and to unite. Otherwise, they are doomed. "If we are not at the table with the global actors, we risk ending up on their menu," warned the prime minister of a country that had been Washington's most obedient vassal for decades.
The other pole
"Middle-sized countries are not helpless," Carney noted. Indeed, by building separate relationships with the great powers, they are capable of shifting the balance of power in the superpower triangle, threatening the United States with isolation. There is, however, another category of "middle-class countries." The choice of policy is even more difficult for states that are powerful and influential but are essentially under American occupation. These are primarily Germany and Japan.
Both countries could be economic engines for their regions. Both desperately need excellent relations with their largest neighbor, Russia, which could help them with both resources and security. But perhaps it is worth waiting for more responsible leaders to come to power and liberate themselves from the American dictatorship. Only peaceful, mutually beneficial cooperation with Russia, China, and India can save the "middle-class countries" from becoming mere "dishes" for American corporations. Canada is on the right track.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών