Well, “Fuck the EU” she said, and here we are.

Vance’s speech was a bombshell. Left them weeping, it did. Gotta say though, if Zelensky is where you find your “values and principals” these days, I think you should look somewhere else. We can only hope that Vance’s lecture has killed this sanctimonious and hypocritical values talk. Or reduced it a bit, anyway.

Many see it as complementary to Putin’s speech in the same forum in 2007, Here it is for comparison. For example: “Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves” certainly strikes a chord with Vance’s speech. But Putin’s principal theme (quoting FDR) was that security is indivisible. And surely that is the truth that we see in 2025: if one major player feels insecure then, at the end – say, in 18 years — everybody will. And here we are. The light-hearted attempt to destroy the country that “makes nothing” now has the IISS bemoaning the fact that Russia makes more weapons than all of Europe. Europeans, so confident so recently, now give themselves the fantods about Russia invading.

Two days before, the new US Defense Secretary had put in the first punch: Ukraine is now Europe’s problem. Lots of people are commenting on these announcements and the forthcoming negotiations between Moscow and Washington. This is my little addition to the discussion.

But first read my essay from 2018 on how to fix Ukraine because I think we are starting down that road. It will be a long road and there is still more fighting to come. One can hope, though, with the revelation of how short a time “as long as it takes” is, that the wretched Ukrainians pressed into the slaughterhouse will abandon the Galician cause and vote with their feet. (I am trying to train myself to always remember the distinction between Ukrainians and Galicians).

Everyone should recognise that it would have been more honest had Hegseth admitted Washington’s responsibilities starting from coddling Bandera, building up Stetsko, the five billion dollars, the cookies and “Yats is our guy”. OK, I appreciate that a new team is there, that the new team plans to make big and real changes across the board, is very much the opposite of the last Administration, but still Washington has been the principal author of the Ukrainian cataclysm. After all, in its original declaration of independence Kiev wanted to be neutral and, as Nuland said, it took a lot of money to change things. So some admission of Washington’s very (VERY) large role in the catastrophe would have been more sincere than leaving the impression that the Europeans did it themselves. As to de-industrialisation, don’t pretend Washington had nothing to do with blowing up the gas line that powered it; Nordstream wasn’t eaten by a passing shark. At least Vance said “we” when he talked about uncontrolled “refugee” admission. So, altogether, some admission that Europe was following Washington’s lead in many of these errors would have been better.

But the speeches were certainly truth bombs.

What have we learned? Well, something that Moscow learned a long time ago: Washington is not reliable (the complicated Russia word is недоговороспособны which essentially means that you can’t make an agreement with it and even if you do, it won’t keep it). In a word, Washington caused the Ukraine disaster and, now that it’s gone irredeemably bad, is walking away from it and leaving it to Europe. The simple geopolitical truth is that the United States of America lives on an invulnerable island, with weak and friendly neighbours. No outside force can do anything to it except by the mutual suicide of nuclear weapons. It took Moscow a while to learn it but, eventually, all the broken promises taught it that Washington’s word was worthless. So, in the negotiations that start tomorrow, Moscow is not going to take anything for granted and will accept no verbal assertions.

Now Europe has learned this. In the simplest, bluntest and most brutal terms the fact that has just hit it in the face is that USA is over there and Russia is here. The USA can make a mess anywhere and walk away at any time; remember Vietnam? Afghanistan? Well now it’s you.

So Europe, there’re four things you’d better do immediately: 1) figure out what your real interests are; 2) get yourself into a position to defend them; 3) make your peace with Moscow. (A European master of realpolitik told you years ago “The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia“.) And fourth, read and meditate on the joint Russia-Chinese statement of three years ago. Why? Because that’s the future. What to do? – the European Dilemma. But to start on this program you’ll certainly need a different bunch at the top, won’t you? The German elections next week will give us a clue.

What is the Trump team’s idea of a new world? My guess at the moment is that it envisions a future world of three Great Powers each with its own sphere of interest (I would further guess that it sees Europe in the US sphere and not on its own). This is very far from what the Chinese Foreign Minister spoke of at Munich which would be a world of many countries, big and small, rich and poor, all with a voice deserving of a listen and that is the future Moscow envisions also. See the joint statement and bear in mind that both Russia and China were exceptionalist powers before they learned that that’s a dead end. So, if I’m reading these tea leaves aright, there is still much to be worked out between Washington and Moscow-Beijing. The talks that start tomorrow are the first step in a long and painful road. They will require many adjustments by the American side because Washington doesn’t fully understand how much the correlation of forces has changed and I’m not confident that it can. In a week or so we’ll have a better idea.

Interesting times, indeed.

PS Someone the other day referred to me as a Cassandra: a prophet, usually pessimistic, often right but doomed never to be believed. I guess that’s a sort of compliment. Depressing though to have several friends close me out as a “Putin apologist”.