The European Union could break up over its policy in Ukraine

MICHAEL VON DER SCHULENBURG AND RUTH FIRMENICH

On 1 September, we commemorate the beginning of the Second World War, 85 years ago, with the attack of Nazi Germany on Poland. It became the cruelest and bloodiest war in modern history, costing the lives of some 75 million people and causing immeasurable suffering and unimaginable destruction. Like the First World War, this war also began on European soil and gradually spread to the whole world. One would expect Europeans – and we Germans in particular – to pursue a strict peace policy in this context, in accordance with the UN Charter established after the two world wars, out of a sense of responsibility. Unfortunately, this is not the case!

There is now another war on European soil – in Ukraine. It is by far the most dangerous war since the two world wars, and it could also turn into a world war – this time even a nuclear war. The consequences for humanity could be even more devastating. And yet the EU continues to focus exclusively on a military “solution” to the war in Ukraine, ignoring all the dangers this poses not only for Ukrainians, but also for us Europeans, and for humanity. It is a policy that risks the international isolation of the EU.

The EU is focused exclusively on war

A resolution “in support of Ukraine” adopted by a large majority in the EU Parliament in July this year sets out the EU’s uncompromising orientation towards the continuation of the war. In some respects, this resolution even looks like a call for “total war”. In view of the deteriorating military situation in Ukraine, all resources must be mobilised again in order for Ukraine to achieve a military victory over Russia.

The resolution demands that all EU member states provide “unwavering” support to Ukraine until victory over Russia is achieved. Accordingly, all EU and NATO states are called upon to make 0,25% of their respective GDP available to Ukraine for military purposes. According to an estimate by the conservative EPP group, this would amount to €127.000 billion per year – more than double the German defence budget this year, and far above the military support previously provided to Ukraine. The use of Western weapons against military targets on Russian territory is expressly encouraged, and Ukraine’s path towards NATO is described as “irreversible”. The resolution also calls for the creation of a special international tribunal for Russian war crimes and the confiscation of all frozen Russian assets.

However, there is not a single reference to negotiations or other diplomatic efforts in the three-and-a-half-page resolution. Talks should only take place if Russia capitulates and unconditionally withdraws from all occupied territories. In this context, the resolution harshly criticises Hungarian Prime Minister Orban's efforts to mediate talks between Ukraine and Russia.

Back in June, the European Council appointed former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas as High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The EU is thus entrusting this important diplomatic post to one of Europe's most extreme and controversial anti-Russian politicians. She recently said that breaking up Russia into several small states "would not be a bad thing" and called on those who support Ukraine not to be intimidated by Russia's nuclear weapons capabilities. Now she is expected to promote - diplomatically - the war aims called for in the resolution.

Can the EU even afford such a policy or is it not succumbing to a dangerous arrogance here?

The EU is losing touch with reality

The fundamental problem with the European Parliament's Ukraine resolution is that the EU has neither the power nor the influence to enforce any of the war aims it contains. Its call for an uncompromising continuation of the war until Ukraine achieves military victory over Russia comes at a time when Ukraine is no longer in a position to win this war by military means. American political analysts have long warned that Ukraine could collapse both militarily and politically if the war continues. This is therefore a resolution far removed from reality. Politics remains the art of the possible, and the EU cannot escape that.

To achieve a turnaround in this war, the EU and its member states would have to intervene militarily on a large scale in the war in Ukraine. However, they have neither the military resources nor the political will to do so. If anything, this could only be achieved through close military cooperation between France and Germany. However, there are already considerable political differences between the two countries, so such a risky Franco-German military effort in direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed Russia seems, fortunately, out of the question. Of course, both countries are in a position to escalate the war in Ukraine by supplying Taurus missiles or deploying Western forces. However, this would not help Ukraine to win, it would only risk destroying all of Europe in a nuclear reaction. There is no viable military option for the Europeans.

The European population would not support such a military action either. While the European Parliament has just committed itself to a pro-war policy, public opinion in all European states is opposed to further arms deliveries and in favour of negotiated solutions.

Even in Ukraine, war weariness has spread, with reports of more and more Ukrainian defectors. There are also warnings from Western diplomats that another 10 million Ukrainians could leave the country. In the course of this war, Ukraine is being drastically depopulated, leaving only the elderly and impoverished. But no war is won like this, not even with the 127.000 billion euros of military aid a year demanded by the European Parliament.

Moreover, there are indications from Ukrainian politicians and even President Zelensky that this war cannot be sustained for much longer and that there must be a negotiated solution. The attack of Ukrainian military units on Russian territory will not change this situation at all, despite its PR value in the Western press.

So what does the EU want to achieve with this war resolution?

The EU isolates itself in foreign policy

With the resolution on Ukraine and the appointment of Kallas as EU diplomat, the European Union now appears to be replacing the United States as the dominant pro-war bloc in Ukraine. However, this will further isolate the EU in terms of foreign policy.

Under the Biden presidency, the US had already begun to withdraw from the war in Ukraine and to increasingly shift responsibility for it to us, the Europeans. The decisions of the NATO summit in Washington and the newly created coordination centre for military support to Ukraine in Wiesbaden are signs of this (as is the planned deployment of medium-range missiles in Germany). If the Trump-Vance ticket were to win the US presidential election in November, we already know that they would reach an agreement with Putin over the Europeans to end this war. But even with a Harris-Walz presidency, the US will increasingly focus on internal problems and will have less interest in continuing the war in Ukraine, also in order to be able to concentrate more on the Middle East conflict and the confrontation with China. Above all, the US will try to pass on the enormous costs of this war – and peace could become even more expensive – to Europe.

In addition, the necessary European cohesion in the confrontation with Russia is increasingly breaking down, which will make a common foreign policy on the issue of the war in Ukraine increasingly impossible. The reason lies not only in the dissenting stance of Hungary, Slovakia and, to a certain extent, Italy, but also in the fact that political parties in favour of a negotiated peace are increasingly popular in many EU countries. Following the presidential elections in the USA, this trend in favour of a peaceful resolution of the conflict could be further strengthened. In the background, the widespread distrust in Germany's growing military and political leadership could also play a role in this regard.

But by far the biggest foreign policy challenge to the EU's military policy comes from the so-called Global South. This is reflected above all in the rapid development of the BRICS+ countries, which already today, with 45% of the world's population and 37% of global economic output, far outstrip the EU, which has 5,5% of the world's population and 14,5% of global economic output. Now 30 other countries aspire to become members of BRICS+, including even NATO member Turkey. The BRICS+ countries do not share the EU's bellicose stance, and rather see their security interests endangered by Western attempts to expand NATO to Ukraine and the Black Sea. Therefore, they are all in favour of a negotiated solution. It is of great symbolic importance that the next summit of the BRICS+ states will be held under the Russian presidency in Kazan, Russia, in October this year.

In Kazan, we could witness a truly momentous turning point – a turning point that the EU, in its own arrogance, is largely ignoring. For all Commission President von der Leyen’s great-power fantasies, we should be clear that Europe has long since ceased to be the centre of the world and that we are falling behind demographically, economically and, to some extent, technologically. Militarising the EU will not help. A more peaceful foreign policy would be a better option. But Ms Kallas, with her extreme anti-Russia and pro-war stance, is probably the least favourable option for such an approach.

The EU only harms itself

By deciding to continue focusing exclusively on the war, and having this policy confirmed by the European Parliament, the European Union has drastically restricted its political room for manoeuvre and has put itself on the sidelines geopolitically. And as a result, although the war in Ukraine is of existential importance for the future of Europe as a whole, the EU will probably play no role in resolving this conflict. As a consequence, the EU will also lose influence over what a future peace settlement in Europe might look like. Regardless of how one assesses the question of culpability in the war in Ukraine, this is unspeakable political stupidity, and will have disastrous consequences not only for the population of Ukraine, but also for the population of the EU.

The fact that even after two and a half years, after one of the most brutal wars on European soil, and hundreds of thousands of deaths, the European Union is still not in a position to emancipate itself from the US and formulate an independent alternative peace policy for Europe will completely destroy the European idea, which is based on peace in Europe. The European Union could disintegrate as a consequence of its militaristic policy in Ukraine.

Michael von der Schulenburg, was Assistant Secretary-General (ASG) of the United Nations. He worked for 34 years for the UN and the OSCE in senior positions in development and peacekeeping missions in many crisis regions of the world, including Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Haiti, Somalia, Syria and Sierra Leone. He has published several works on war and peace, non-state armed actors and UN reform. He is currently a Member of the European Parliament for the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht.

Ruth Firmenich She is a political scientist. She was office manager for Sahra Wagenknecht for 20 years. She has been a member of the European Parliament since 2024 for the Sahra Wagenknecht Party, where she works on issues related to European foreign and security policy.