Ukraine finds itself at the most challenging juncture of its life-or-death conflict since the comprehensive Russian assault started in February 2022.
The U.S. has withdrawn from the coalition backing Kyiv, breaking away from a multiyear strategic pact it had entered into with Ukraine the previous year.
For a year now, Ukraine has maintained a defensive stance, with Russian assaults on its territory intensifying.
Currently, the U.S. is compelling Ukraine to pursue negotiations for peace from a standpoint of vulnerability, meanwhile insisting on recouping $135.7 billion in military and financial assistance provided.
More severe developments may still occur, cautions Phillips O’Brien, who leads the School of International Relations at St Andrews University and is a prominent analyst and commentator on Ukraine. The U.S. might lift sanctions imposed on Russia and withdraw from NATO.
Al Jazeera spoke with him about why, despite these gloomy prospects, he believes Europe still has the capacity to keep Ukraine fighting, and could ultimately do much more to determine the outcome of this war – for the sake of its own security.
Can Europe along with some countries such as Japan and Australia prevent Ukraine from getting into a poor agreement involving U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian Leader Vladimir Putin according to Al Jazeera?
Phillips O’Brien:
They can certainly keep Ukraine in the fight. A lot of it depends on what the US does. We have to be careful about that. If the US actually moves to fully backing Russia and provides Russia with a significant amount of intelligence and support, that will be really a problem for Ukraine and Europe.
However, let’s suppose for a moment that the U.S. decides to withdraw entirely from this situation. In that case, Europe possesses the means necessary to support Ukraine. This scenario would necessitate substantial coordination, dedication, and considerable resolve on Europe’s end. To date, they haven’t demonstrated such unified determination; however, should they choose to act collectively, they undoubtedly possess the capability. They hold ample financial reserves, advanced technical expertise, and sufficient military assets capable of making a notable impact.
Al Jazeera: Do you think that, beyond intelligence, Europe and Ukraine can swiftly build up the defense industry they need?
O’Brien:
Ukraine is already making significant progress in this area, so Europeans could assist in accelerating Ukraine’s efforts in producing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). It’s important to recognize that the Russian military isn’t an invincible force; rather, it remains a fundamentally flawed organization.
The U.S. has safeguarded it through various means during this conflict by assisting Ukraine so they do not target the Russian armed forces within Russia; this strategic decision was made intentionally by America. In contrast, Europe possesses the capability to alter how it supports Ukraine—specifically, by providing greater assistance for attacks against Russian manufacturing sites or military installations inside Russia should it choose to do so.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says he aims to make 30,000 long-range drones this year and 3,000 cruise missiles.
That would be very impressive if they could get that money up and running, and that would, I think, put Russian logistics and military production under significant pressure.
What might happen if Ukraine and Europe joined forces and took significant actions, considering the earlier point about the U.S. potentially not staying impartial alongside Russia?
O’Brien:
If these tariffs announced by Trump on April 2 go into effect, it will essentially become an economic conflict between the U.S. and Europe. This situation might lead to one key outcome: ‘the U.S. will not play a part in defending Europe under NATO Article 5.’
They essentially have the power to isolate Europe from the transatlantic alliance. The biggest threat for Europe right now would be losing its nuclear assurances, effectively telling Russia that they won’t protect Europe. This would mean that European nuclear protection drops significantly, relying mainly on just a few French and British submarines.
But Putin has already issued nuclear threats. He did so when he test-fired the Oreshkin ballistic missile over Dnipro last November.
O’Brien:
I don’t believe anybody in Europe considered [the previous threats] to be a serious danger to Europe due to the protection provided by the US nuclear umbrella.
Is There a Shortfall in Intelligence Capabilities Within Europe? – Al Jazeera
O’Brien:
Essentially, many European intelligence agencies have merged their efforts with those of the U.S., receiving substantial data from American counterparts. Additionally, the U.S. possesses advanced technology that these European entities lack.
Right from the start, you would need to depend on inferior and less advanced systems.
[Starlink] is merely a component of their broader strategy. There are US observation systems in orbit, US monitoring capabilities, and US intelligence exchanges — giving them surveillance abilities that Europe currently lacks. This situation would put you significantly behind initially, with Europe needing to develop an entirely new system as a result.
Al Jazeera: Would you, in this scenario of confrontation, expect pushback from within the United States or US forces in Europe?
O’Brien:
Congress could try and force back at any time. The issue is the president’s commander-in-chief, and right now, the Republicans have no desire to stand up to him.
Why is it crucial for Europe to take this stance according to Al Jazeera?
O’Brien:
Since the US has stepped back from involvement, Ukraine now holds significant importance for Europe’s future security landscape.
If we exclude the U.S., Ukraine’s situation is fundamentally crucial for European security. This is because, as Putin recognizes, Ukraine plays a pivotal role in determining whether Russia poses a threat to Europe or not.
If they manage to seize control of Ukraine and utilize its resources, it’s likely they would also incorporate Belarus into their grasp, putting them in an even stronger position. The rise of populists in France or elsewhere across Europe adds another layer of uncertainty. This scenario presents a highly perilous state of affairs.
Europe finds itself divided between those calling for immediate action and others who struggle to accept what is unfolding before them. This situation is intensely aggravating since one could have predicted a year ago that a Trump presidency was imminent. The likelihood of Europe having to prepare for the U.S. withdrawing from international commitments such as NATO weighed heavily, yet many were reluctant to face this reality. Their refusal to contemplate a probable scenario represents an abdication of leadership on a monumental scale.
