Real change begins with the mind: victory does not come to those who do not believe in it.
Europe needs a development boost for further integration. Its involvement in Ukraine’s victory has given it a unique opportunity. This will pave the way for Europeans to become the new pillar of the West.
Today, we are witnessing the erosion of the liberal world order that began in 1941 with the signing of the Atlantic Charter by the United Kingdom and the United States. In the face of the geopolitical threat of communism, NATO was formed, placing the US at the centre as the new global gendarme.
Fukuyama’s proclaimed “end of history” did not last long, and the age of great turmoil began with the attack on the World Trade Center in New York in 2001. Subsequent terrorist attacks, the financial crisis of 2008 and other major upheavals plunged the West deep into a state of powerlessness and decadence.
Western political elites tried to preserve the status quo by turning a blind eye to current problems in the hope that they would either disappear or that their successors would take care of them. This was done in the name of avoiding painful decisions and their political costs.
Bold geopolitical projects and initiatives have occasionally been proposed by a few European federalists and some French presidents.
Weaknesses of the West
Based on this, Vladimir Putin’s neo-imperialist, revanchist Russian policy took shape. Putin’s advantage is a willpower advantage – it comes down to clearly defined goals, a thorough analysis of the opponent’s weaknesses, and ruthlessness in action, with little regard for costs and victims – including on the Russian side. However, the ultimate realisation of Putin’s criminal agenda may be less feasible if he confronts sufficiently strong and effective resistance and the Kremlin’s resources are depleted.
In this geopolitical game – which has long been considered a war – Russia’s strategic opponent is the “collective West” (a term coined by Russian propaganda). The Kremlin benefits from the West’s problems with unity and cohesion by winning according to the maxim “divide and conquer”. This is logical – the difference in potential to Russia’s disadvantage means the Kremlin has to focus on ideological and information diversion, clandestine activities and destroying the enemy from within.
The democratic West has not yet found an effective remedy for this kind of “hybrid war”.
The now legendary visit of the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to the White House is a symbolic turning point forcing Europe to transform itself into a fully independent global player.
From today’s perspective, one has to admit that the French and their intuition were right. Given their limited trust in the USA and transatlantic relations – the Gaullists began pursuing a policy in the 1950s that we would today describe as strategic autonomy.
United States of Europe
The significance of the effects of the war unleashed by Russia for the future world order cannot be overestimated. At the same time, it is still an unresolved issue. A victory for Ukraine would be a victory for the free world against an alliance of autocrats who want to split up the world into spheres of influence on the ruins of the liberal order. This is a great opportunity for Europe to break out of its stagnation and become the guardian of a rules-based order.
Alternatively, this could be an era of brutal expansion and aggression, where the defeat of Ukraine would embolden regimes around the world.
So what exactly should Europe do today?
It needs a vision, culminating in what Winston Churchill postulated: a United States of Europe, a dynamic international policy actor with global military potential.
The way to this goal is through accelerated and deepened European integration (pan-European elections, a constitution, a simplified institutional system with a key role for the European Parliament and the establishment of a European army).
The EU must cast off the shackles of bureaucracy and regulations that stifle competitiveness and focus on the development of entrepreneurship and innovation as powerful incentives for growth.
As regards internal security and protection against disinformation, extreme nationalist and populist political forces need to be curbed. Such forces are exploited by Russia and China, among others, with the aim of destroying Europe from within.
The European project cannot be successful without Ukraine. The UK must be part of a re-integrated Europe.
Since 2022, Volodymyr Zelensky and Ukrainian diplomacy have been emphasising that there is no diplomatic miracle solution to the war with Russia. It is also a harmful myth that this war cannot be won, i.e. Ukraine’s borders cannot be restored to what they were before the invasion in 2014.
A European victory plan for Ukraine
The obvious priority should be to make up the shortfall caused by the freeze on US support for Ukraine – ranging from arms and ammunition to equally vital intelligence and satellite communications systems.
It is imperative to conduct a comprehensive audit of Europe’s dependence on third countries (including the USA) for arms and dual-use goods (civilian-military), key components and strategic raw materials. European countries must develop their own industrial capacities and strive for the greatest possible independence in this area.
Now is the time for a total embargo on any trade with Russia (including the import of energy resources), freezing all Russian assets and allocating them to mitigate the shocks caused and to finance Ukraine’s military efforts.
Tough sanctions should also be imposed on third countries (such as the countries of Central Asia) that allow Russia to circumvent the restrictions imposed on it by the EU and other world democracies.
Engaging in close cooperation and strengthening ties with the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea and other liberal democracies are an essential step. There is huge untapped potential in cooperation with Ukrainian arms companies and the adoption of technologies related to unmanned systems (drones and autonomous vehicles) and radio-electronic warfare. For Poland, Ukrainian missile technologies could also be particularly attractive.
What about sending troops?
Sending military contingents to Ukraine as a peacekeeping mission has caused controversy not only in Poland. These plans make sense in terms of the intended deterrence of further Russian attacks, but at the same time they would, in a way, sanction Russia’s de facto occupation of part of Ukraine’s territory.
A programme to recruit European volunteers to serve in the Ukrainian armed forces might be a simpler and more valuable concept for Ukraine in political terms. The programme should definitely include fighter pilots and ground personnel. The European countries would remain neutral in the war, while the volunteers could also receive Ukrainian citizenship. At the same time, mockingly winking in the direction of Russia, which is seething with indignation – these are not our soldiers!
In recent weeks, record investments in the European defence sector have been announced, and the proposal under consideration is to cover all of Europe with the Franco-British nuclear umbrella. Perhaps it should also cover Ukraine (in case nuclear weapons were used against it).
With the introduction of a no-fly zone over Ukraine, this would be the best guarantee of security until it regains its territorial integrity, which should result in a smooth accession to the EU and its defence structures. In such a scenario, Ukraine will of course become one of the pillars of the future European armed forces.
Let us emphasise that the above actions will be possible without sending thousands of European soldiers to Ukraine.
Although the fundamental change in US policy and the ensuing turmoil forced reluctant adaptation in Europe, the basic and problematic resource has so far been political willpower. The lack of political willpower condemned Ukraine to remain dependent on the West, making it impossible for them to win the war. However, the very announcement of the above measures as components of a new paradigm of European policy will contribute to strengthening the morale of Ukraine and Europe.
Significant deliveries of military equipment will have a considerable impact on the frontline situation. A fleet of two hundred modern fighter planes equipped with a sufficient number of missiles will give Ukraine air superiority. If the number of its rocket artillery systems is increased several-fold (the Ukrainians have probably received 65-80 HIMARS/MLRS systems so far), and the availability of long-range missiles will no longer be a limiting factor, Russian positions will be systematically levelled. Then the Russian armoury will have to be moved so far away that supplying the front line will become a dramatic problem for Russia. It is true that the effectiveness (accuracy) of these weapons has been reduced by the powerful Russian jamming system, but this can be compensated to a significant extent – in addition to counter-jamming – by the number of missiles fired.
A sense of strong European support and success on the front line will boost the morale of the Ukrainian army, which is currently struggling with recruitment problems.
Cost calculation
The costs associated with the proposed measures can be regarded as temporary and are intended to generate future profits from the post-war boom, Ukraine’s reconstruction, the normalisation of energy prices, the expansion of the common market, the development of new technologies (for example, innovations from the Cold War era and Israel’s start-up nation model related to the arms industry).
One element worth considering – and another Israeli inspiration – could be the introduction of conscription for each gender in at least some (e.g. most at risk) EU countries.
Such a solution should be supported by a decent payment for basic military service and the possibility of an attractive career in the armed forces. Incentives should also apply to foreigners, including refugees and immigrants residing in the EU.
The conflict with Russia is not only about Ukraine. Supporting the current protest movement in Georgia and actively countering Russian activities in the Caucasus, the Middle East and Africa should be part of the measures to strategically stretch Russia – to disperse its attention and limited resources.
Nuclear blackmail and the risk of nuclear war
Logically, in the scenario of a Ukrainian victory, the question of Russian nuclear weapons and the prospect of a nuclear attack by the Russian Federation, facing foreseeable defeat in Ukraine, must be addressed.
First of all, nuclear blackmail has been an overused tactic for several years – over time, nearly every so-called “red line” drawn by Putin and his government has been crossed, each time without any significant response.
According to military experts, the use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia is unlikely to allow it to achieve a fundamental breakthrough on the front line, but it may provide a gateway that will enable the West to become fully involved.
By breaking the nuclear taboo, Russia would become a diplomatic pariah – even in China and the Global South, on whose cooperation it is entirely dependent.
Finally, even if we assume Putin’s unpredictability and lack of restraint in a situation he perceives as desperate, there is a significant likelihood that his personal willingness to escalate to nuclear conflict would trigger alarm within his inner circle and the chain of command. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the existence of a broad collective “suicide pact” within the Kremlin and Russian military leadership is unlikely, forcing them to take action.
The paralyzing fear of Putin’s nuclear button means falling for his bluff and leads nowhere – it offers no solution while simultaneously encouraging him to escalate his attacks and demands.
Renewing the West
The vision outlined in this text has a natural sequel – a multipolar, increasingly integrated West, where the U.S. eventually becomes one of three key actors, while gradually reducing its global involvement. In this scenario, a reawakened Europe – including Ukraine – can and should emerge as the second pillar of the West, while the third would be the British “Anglosphere”, comprising the remaining “Anglo-Saxon” democracies (the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). Given its historical, cultural, economic, and political ties, the United Kingdom – once reintegrated with Europe – can serve as a bridge between these three spheres.
This framework should be complemented by allied nations such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and – provided it returns to its more democratic and liberal roots – Israel.
Such an integrated West would not only prevent the collapse of the global order as we know it – one that aligns with the visions of Putin, Xi, the Iranian ayatollahs, Kim Jong Un, various minor satraps, fundamentalists, and terrorist organizations, but would also serve as an inclusive force advocating for democracy, the rule of law, and human rights.
A key incentive for respecting international law and fostering cooperation should be the willingness to open Western markets to developing nations and new allies, as well as the provision of financial and investment support as an alternative to growing reliance on an increasingly expansionist China.
This global perspective is essential if we, as Europeans, wish to avoid marginalization – and, ultimately, vassalization. A strong, multipolar West could serve as a response to the Russian–Chinese Darwinist vision of the world.
However, real change begins on the mental level – victory does not come to those who do not believe in it. The West is us, and Europe must take the initiative in its defence, treating Ukraine’s victory and the neutralization of the Russian threat as both a challenge and an opportunity for geopolitical maturity.
Poland, with its ambitious military expansion programme and enduring Euro-enthusiasm, has the potential to become one of the key leaders and main drivers of this process.
Source: wyborcza.pl
