Disagreement about how to end the Ukraine War is upending the transatlantic relationship, transforming Europe’s approach to its own security, and deepening divisions between the Global South and the West. With the conflict having reached a stalemate, a realistic approach to peace negotiations is essential.
NEW DELHI – At a time of rising geopolitical tensions and deepening global fragmentation, the Ukraine war has proved particularly divisive. From the start, the battle lines were clearly drawn: Russia on one side, Ukraine and the West on the other, and much of the Global South hoping only for the conflict to end. Now, however, alignments are shifting. Whether this will advance efforts to resolve the conflict and strengthen global stability remains to be seen.
After more than three years, Europe – including the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Norway – remains largely steadfast in its support of Ukraine. The largest armed conflict in its neighborhood since World War II has deeply affected the European psyche, as it has challenged basic assumptions about continental security and revived the specter of nuclear annihilation that loomed over Europe throughout the Cold War. The prevailing view has always been that a Russian “victory” – including a peace deal that ceded some Ukrainian territory to Russia – would amount to an “existential threat.”
The United States, however, has decided that it no longer wants to “pour billions of dollars” into what Secretary of State Marco Rubio calls a “bloody stalemate, a meat-grinder-type war.” So, US President Donald Trump is seeking to negotiate a peace deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin. To press Ukraine to accept the concessions such an agreement will undoubtedly entail, the Trump administration suspended and later resumed military aid and intelligence support.
This is not about ending a “savage conflict” for “the good of the world,” as Trump claims. While years of sanctions were supposed to drain Russia, economically and militarily, to America’s benefit, they bolstered an unholy Sino-Russian alliance against the West, while sustaining a conflict that kept US attention and resources in Europe. With his push for a peace deal in Ukraine, Trump is seeking to cut America’s losses and shift its strategic focus and military resources toward the Indo-Pacific – the home of America’s real enemy: China.
As Trump’s predecessor Joe Biden recognized, only China has the resolve and capability to surpass the US as the foremost world power. Yet the US still has more than 100,000 troops stationed in Europe. That is why US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently warned that the US can “no longer tolerate” an “imbalanced” transatlantic relationship that “encourages dependency.” Europe must take “responsibility for its own security,” Hegseth said, so that the US can focus on “deterring war with China.”
The question is whether Europe is capable of managing its own security. The answer probably should be yes. As Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk recently pointed out, Europe does not lack economic strength. Nor does it lack people: there are “500 million Europeans begging 300 million Americans to defend them against 140 million Russians.” What is missing is the European Union’s belief that it is a “global power.” The result is a rudderless Europe.
At a time of escalating global turmoil, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided.
Subscribe to Digital or Digital Plus now to secure your discount.
Subscribe Now
When it comes to supporting Ukraine, Europe has another critical shortcoming. As NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has noted, Europe lacks the necessary military-industrial base to provide sufficient arms support to Ukraine. That is why some, including Rutte, want to make a deal with the US: you keep supplying Ukraine with weapons, and we will foot the bill. Unless the Trump administration accepts such an arrangement, the British-French plan to build a “coalition of the willing” to do the “heavy lifting” on Ukrainian security will face powerful headwinds.
Meanwhile, the Global South is still struggling to cope with the Ukraine war’s economic fallout, especially sharply higher food and energy prices, which have had particularly devastating consequences for small and vulnerable developing countries with limited foreign reserves. Sri Lanka is a case in point. In the months that followed Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, skyrocketing global prices drained its reserves, leading to fuel, food, medicine, and electricity shortages. The resulting economic meltdown pushed a frustrated population over the edge, triggering widespread protests that toppled a political dynasty.
This explains why developing countries remain largely unified in advocating an early negotiated end to the war, even if that means leaving a sizable chunk of Ukrainian territory under Russian occupation. If anything, calls for a peace agreement have grown since 2023, with even NATO member Turkey and close US ally Israel charting more independent stances on the conflict. It does not help that, for many countries in the Global South, the West’s contrasting responses to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza reek of hypocrisy.
For now, Ukraine and Europe remain committed to seeking peace through strength. But as admirable as Ukraine’s resistance has been, and as important as it is to defend the international legal principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that Russia has flagrantly violated, the fact is that the conflict has reached a stalemate, while the international fallout continues to grow. Rather than repeat the mistakes of the 1950-53 Korean War – in which an armistice agreement was reached only after two years of military deadlock – all parties should adopt a realistic approach to ending the war and negotiate accordingly.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
US President Donald Trump’s import tariffs have triggered a wave of retaliatory measures, setting off a trade war with key partners and raising fears of a global downturn. But while Trump’s protectionism and erratic policy shifts could have far-reaching implications, the greatest victim is likely to be the United States itself.
warns that the new administration’s protectionism resembles the strategy many developing countries once tried.
It took a pandemic and the threat of war to get Germany to dispense with the two taboos – against debt and monetary financing of budgets – that have strangled its governments for decades. Now, it must join the rest of Europe in offering a positive vision of self-sufficiency and an “anti-fascist economic policy.”
welcomes the apparent departure from two policy taboos that have strangled the country's investment.
NEW DELHI – At a time of rising geopolitical tensions and deepening global fragmentation, the Ukraine war has proved particularly divisive. From the start, the battle lines were clearly drawn: Russia on one side, Ukraine and the West on the other, and much of the Global South hoping only for the conflict to end. Now, however, alignments are shifting. Whether this will advance efforts to resolve the conflict and strengthen global stability remains to be seen.
After more than three years, Europe – including the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Norway – remains largely steadfast in its support of Ukraine. The largest armed conflict in its neighborhood since World War II has deeply affected the European psyche, as it has challenged basic assumptions about continental security and revived the specter of nuclear annihilation that loomed over Europe throughout the Cold War. The prevailing view has always been that a Russian “victory” – including a peace deal that ceded some Ukrainian territory to Russia – would amount to an “existential threat.”
The United States, however, has decided that it no longer wants to “pour billions of dollars” into what Secretary of State Marco Rubio calls a “bloody stalemate, a meat-grinder-type war.” So, US President Donald Trump is seeking to negotiate a peace deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin. To press Ukraine to accept the concessions such an agreement will undoubtedly entail, the Trump administration suspended and later resumed military aid and intelligence support.
This is not about ending a “savage conflict” for “the good of the world,” as Trump claims. While years of sanctions were supposed to drain Russia, economically and militarily, to America’s benefit, they bolstered an unholy Sino-Russian alliance against the West, while sustaining a conflict that kept US attention and resources in Europe. With his push for a peace deal in Ukraine, Trump is seeking to cut America’s losses and shift its strategic focus and military resources toward the Indo-Pacific – the home of America’s real enemy: China.
As Trump’s predecessor Joe Biden recognized, only China has the resolve and capability to surpass the US as the foremost world power. Yet the US still has more than 100,000 troops stationed in Europe. That is why US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently warned that the US can “no longer tolerate” an “imbalanced” transatlantic relationship that “encourages dependency.” Europe must take “responsibility for its own security,” Hegseth said, so that the US can focus on “deterring war with China.”
The question is whether Europe is capable of managing its own security. The answer probably should be yes. As Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk recently pointed out, Europe does not lack economic strength. Nor does it lack people: there are “500 million Europeans begging 300 million Americans to defend them against 140 million Russians.” What is missing is the European Union’s belief that it is a “global power.” The result is a rudderless Europe.
Winter Sale: Save 40% on a new PS subscription
At a time of escalating global turmoil, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided.
Subscribe to Digital or Digital Plus now to secure your discount.
Subscribe Now
When it comes to supporting Ukraine, Europe has another critical shortcoming. As NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has noted, Europe lacks the necessary military-industrial base to provide sufficient arms support to Ukraine. That is why some, including Rutte, want to make a deal with the US: you keep supplying Ukraine with weapons, and we will foot the bill. Unless the Trump administration accepts such an arrangement, the British-French plan to build a “coalition of the willing” to do the “heavy lifting” on Ukrainian security will face powerful headwinds.
Meanwhile, the Global South is still struggling to cope with the Ukraine war’s economic fallout, especially sharply higher food and energy prices, which have had particularly devastating consequences for small and vulnerable developing countries with limited foreign reserves. Sri Lanka is a case in point. In the months that followed Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, skyrocketing global prices drained its reserves, leading to fuel, food, medicine, and electricity shortages. The resulting economic meltdown pushed a frustrated population over the edge, triggering widespread protests that toppled a political dynasty.
This explains why developing countries remain largely unified in advocating an early negotiated end to the war, even if that means leaving a sizable chunk of Ukrainian territory under Russian occupation. If anything, calls for a peace agreement have grown since 2023, with even NATO member Turkey and close US ally Israel charting more independent stances on the conflict. It does not help that, for many countries in the Global South, the West’s contrasting responses to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza reek of hypocrisy.
For now, Ukraine and Europe remain committed to seeking peace through strength. But as admirable as Ukraine’s resistance has been, and as important as it is to defend the international legal principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that Russia has flagrantly violated, the fact is that the conflict has reached a stalemate, while the international fallout continues to grow. Rather than repeat the mistakes of the 1950-53 Korean War – in which an armistice agreement was reached only after two years of military deadlock – all parties should adopt a realistic approach to ending the war and negotiate accordingly.