The EU’s strategic failure over Ukraine

The current topic of a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia is currently trending. From the very beginning, I warned that this must not become Europe’s Vietnam, meaning a prolonged costly conflict with no clear endgame, draining resources, fracturing alliances, and leaving devastation in its wake. Yet here we are. Surely, the war in Ukraine has reached a sobering point, not only in terms of human loss and economic disruption, but in the collapse of the strategic illusions that shaped the EU’s response.

What we are witnessing today is not unexpected to those who have followed my social media and the columns I have published in The Malta Business Weekly since 2022. In fact, I began my public appearances well before Russia invaded Ukraine. I cautioned that war was not in Ukraine’s long-term interest. I argued that the longer it lingered, the more Ukraine stood to lose, not just lives and infrastructure, but territory, economic leverage and diplomatic influence. My appeal was to explore common workable formulae and push for a diplomatic solution rooted in realism.

Some people asked me, so what did you expect, that Ukraine should surrender? No. My point was that Ukraine should not have gone to war in the first place, no matter what the EU and the Biden administration said, because in the end, it would lose additional territory. There were numerous efforts to avoid war, especially when former Chancellor Scholz and President Macron met with Putin to discuss legal security guarantees. I genuinely believed that both Scholz and Macron could achieve a diplomatic solution. Scholz was undermined by Ursula von der Leyen along the way, while Macron had to focus on the Presidency of the Council of the EU and his domestic presidential elections. The diplomatic solution I was expecting would have offered Ukraine credible security guarantees without triggering Russia’s red lines. Specifically, I called for guarantees under Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty. While not identical to NATO’s Article 5, they would have offered a mutual defence clause for EU assistance, including NATO cooperation. This would have provided Ukraine with protection and deterrence without requiring formal NATO membership, which Russia had declared a red line. It was a pragmatic solution grounded in European law and strategic political balance.

As you may recall, the EU chose slogans over substance. Von der Leyen’s declaration that “Putin will fail, and Ukraine will prevail” was emotionally resonant, but strategically misguided. Her monopolisation of foreign affairs, sidelining HRVP Josep Borrell, showed her refusal to entertain diplomatic nuance. Von der Leyen pushed ahead with maximalist outcomes. To this day, von der Leyen has not admitted her failure to engage diplomatically, nor has she acknowledged the economic consequences of prolonged war that Europeans have had to bear. Needless to say, the current peace deal has left Europe sidelined in the very negotiations that now shape the future of Ukraine and the security of the continent.

Donald Trump’s recent proposals, including land swaps and NATO’s Article 5 style security guarantees, reignited the debate I tried to start in 2022. However, I never supported land swaps, even though that is what is now reflected on the ground. Russia controls parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. Under international law, borders should not be changed through arms aggression. Yet this is what is happening. If Russia retains this captured territory, it will not be an optimal deal for Ukraine. It has lost significant land and with it strategic assets, especially rare earth and critical mineral deposits, many of which are now under Russian occupation. Ukraine holds one-third of Europe’s lithium reserves and a substantial share of the EU’s critical raw materials list. These resources are not just economic assets. They are strategic levers for reconstruction, industrial development and energy transition. If Ukraine is to be integrated into the EU, we must understand where these deposits lie and how they can be secured, developed and reinvested into Ukraine’s future and that of the continent. This is not just about peace, but also about prosperity.

When I said that if war becomes the path, someone will lose territory, it was obvious that Ukraine would be the one to lose. That is the brutal mathematics of conflict. Today, Ukraine finds itself with less land, more destruction and a population displaced across borders. The heroic resistance of the Ukrainian people deserves admiration, but the strategic choices made on their behalf have led to a worse outcome than the one that could have been negotiated two years ago. This peace deal will not produce a pareto optimal outcome. Hypothetically, such a forced peace agreement could be temporary, until one day Ukraine and the EU rearm to recapture the lost territory through military assault.

Sanctions were another pillar of Europe’s response, and certainly another area where I warned of miscalculations. I consistently argued that sanctions must be applied universally to be effective. Fragmented or selective sanctions only serve to shift trade flows and empower alternative alliances. Without coordination that included China, India, South Africa, and other global actors, sanctions became symbolic gestures rather than strategic tools. Europe ignored this and faced consequences, including higher energy costs, and inflation that has eroded household incomes across the continent. Meanwhile, the United States has capitalised on the crisis, exporting LNG at premium prices and extracting trade concessions under duress.

Whether we like it or not, the European Union will always remain a vassal of the United States. Whether it is Trump or any other president, the EU cannot divorce itself from the US, neither economically nor militarily. This is not a matter of sentiment, but of structural reality and political balance. Our defence architecture is chained to NATO. Our energy transition depends on external suppliers, now backed by American LNG. Our tech sector is shaped by US platforms. And our trade flows are vulnerable to Washington’s impulses, even as they claim that rearming Europe will produce strategic autonomy.

This truth came into sharp focus at a critical moment, when Trump humiliated von der Leyen with a punitive tariff package that exposed the EU’s lack of leverage. The deal she brokered was a failure. It was not a negotiation. It was a surrender. And it revealed, in stark terms, how weak she is as a leader. Not least as the Guardian of the Treaties, her role demands strategic foresight and institutional strength. She showed neither and has failed Europeans repeatedly. In my personal opinion, her post is truly untenable. If the EU attempts to reject the emerging peace deal, Trump will twist her arm again, and that of the entire Union. He has already demonstrated his willingness to weaponise tariffs, energy and diplomacy. Von der Leyen has no credible counterweight because she failed strategically.

I do not want to sound patronising, but I speak from experience. As you may know, I served on the EU’s Political and Security Committee. I understand the balance between principle and pragmatism. I know how dossiers are shaped, how interests are negotiated, and how outcomes are forged. And I know that the EU has lost its strategic compass while trying to shape one of its own, however ironic that may sound. The road ahead is uncertain. A peace deal may emerge, but Ukraine may resist territorial concessions. While Ukraine resists, Russia is escalating its military aggression. However, one thing is clear; the past EU narrative is now dead. The new reality demands diplomacy, pragmatism and leadership, with Trump exploiting the political vacuum. Europe must find its voice again, not through von der Leyen, but through proper leaders. I wrote these things before they happened. I warned about the economic fallout before sanctions were imposed. I advocated for diplomacy when it was unpopular. And I proposed formulas for peace that are now being discussed at the highest levels.

Lastly, I truly hope that Ukraine is not worse off with such a forced deal.