Open/close all quotes
Full support also in Europe’s interest
Europe must now assume responsibility, demands La Stampa:
“The only real item on the agenda is how Europe can become more involved in Kyiv’s defence in view of the likelihood of the US withdrawing from Ukraine (and elsewhere) under Trump. This remains the key issue both in a scenario where Trump and Vladimir Putin agree on a ceasefire (albeit an unstable one) and in a protracted war. In both cases, tens of thousands of soldiers will be needed, as well as ammunition, missiles, air defence systems and genuine security guarantees from Europe. … Ukraine will continue to defend itself as best it can. It is not only right, but also in our own interest that it does so with our full support.”
To have a say, you have to put something on the table
Trouw columnist Stevo Akkerman asks what role the EU can play in potential peace talks:
“The EU has no military arm, so which countries are we talking about? I assume it’s not about Russian-minded countries like Hungary or Slovakia. … Besides, if you want to sit at the table, you have to be prepared to participate in Europe’s new peace power role, otherwise you have nothing to contribute. But that power doesn’t exist. … And what will Trump do then? Is Europe prepared to play a military role without the US? What I see is that the old continent is tottering.”
EU needs to get used to new role
As an analyst at the Lithuanian Military Academy, Gintautas Razma comments in LRT:
“In military terms, Nato as an organisation is a ‘force user’, while the member states are ‘force providers’. The understanding that Nato does not have its own armed forces but only uses provided forces is of crucial importance. It can be argued that sooner or later the EU will also take on the role of a ‘force builder’. The sooner this is recognised, the sooner the EU can mobilise its resources for the development of military capabilities.”
A high-threat situation
Each December the Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS) issues a risk assessment. This year’s report has Jyllands Posten worried:
“Chinese and Russian ships are sailing our waters and behaving – strangely. The DDIS is talking about an increased risk of sabotage, which is an effective weapon for waging a form of war against others. The fear generated by the threat of sabotage alone is an effective weapon. … Russia, China and North Korea are a formidable trio of adversaries, not least because the West is currently facing political crises in Germany and France and uncertainty over the future role of the US in Nato. In this situation, all the lofty talk about defence needs to be backed up with actions.”
The plans are already in place in the US
Radio Europa Liberă speculates on how Washington, until now Ukraine’s largest arms supplier, will position itself:
“Trump’s point man is Keith Kellogg, a retired US lieutenant general who advised Trump’s vice president Mike Pence during his first term in office. In a much-cited policy paper co-authored before the November US elections, Kellogg proposed freezing the front lines and using both carrot and stick to force Kyiv and Moscow into negotiations. Kyiv could be pressured by halting US arms deliveries. Moscow could be pressured by increasing the flow of oil to world markets to lower prices and reduce Moscow’s revenues.”
Trump could bring the breakthrough
Trud hopes for change after the change of power in Washington:
“It is a success in itself that in the weeks following the US elections, a ceasefire and the possibility of negotiations are being discussed seriously for the first time. … It is increasingly clear that waging war to infinity is not an option for either side. Ukraine will not be able to hold out without foreign aid and Russia is becoming increasingly isolated internationally, which inevitably has a serious negative impact on the country. Now that Trump is coming to power, it seems like the right time to end the war.”