Once upon a time in Paris

EU’s fate hangs in the balance as the US and Russia shape a new world order. With Ukraine sidelined and the EU weakened, will this geopolitical shift mark the end of European unity or a new beginning?

In the meantime, in Paris¹

They crossed paths in Paris as if it were 1946. A glass of champagne was ordered—a timeless gesture. The table was arranged intimately to create the illusion of long-time friends engaging in casual conversation, or as we might say today, a "brief discussion." At the center of it all, Ursula, exuding her Mephistophelian grandeur, took the lead. The setting evoked the tension of impending conflict—whether an entry into war or an exit from one remained uncertain—yet the dialogue was not about forging peace. Instead, the focus was on strategizing war, deciding who would be sent first, and determining how much of the European population would be sacrificed.

It sounds like the opening scene of a political thriller, perhaps even a gruesome film, but in reality, it is either the beginning or the conclusion of an international play in which Europe is treated like a pawn. A Europe that willingly placed itself in this position after failing to recover from its post-World War II subjugation by the UK and the USA, and that has continued to implement self-destructive policies, pushing its people into hardship.

Europe’s greatest adversary is, ironically, the European Union itself. The grand deception of the Maastricht Treaty was akin to accepting an invitation to dine with the devil, evolving into a grotesque political union that resembles an incestuous nightmare. The Paris gathering of European nations to deliberate over the Ukraine conflict serves only to highlight the undeniable decline of the European Union—a lifeless entity that continues to move but has long since lost its vitality.

One might argue, quite justifiably, that the resolution of the Ukraine conflict signals the demise of the European Union. Russia, under Vladimir Putin, and the United States, led by the audacious Trump, have already determined that the war must come to an end, completely bypassing the European Union in the negotiations. The EU is treated as a mere subordinate, and rightly so, as it willingly adopted this role from the outset. Alongside Ukraine under Zelensky—a mere NATO puppet, shaped more by Washington than by Hollywood—the EU stands as the true loser of this war. Not only has it been sidelined and humiliated in the peace process, but it now finds itself in a weaker position than before the conflict began.

Washington's triumph is further underscored by the deepened dependence of the European Union on the United States. Severing its ties with China and Russia, Europe has found itself entirely at the mercy of Washington. The war in Ukraine was not merely a battle between the dollar empire and a defiant Russia; it was also a calculated move by Washington against the European Union, punishing it for previous leanings toward Moscow and Beijing, ultimately cementing its subservience to American hegemony. Consider the gas issue: Europe once acquired Russian gas at a low cost but is now forced to procure it from the United States at exorbitant prices. The consequences are clear, and they extend even to Germany, once regarded as the powerhouse of Europe.

Today, Germany is in the grip of a recession, with its automotive industry—a pillar of its economy—bearing the brunt of the downturn. Should Germany falter, the entire European Union, constructed upon a technocratic framework, could collapse like a house of cards—an empty monument to financial capitalism that routinely undermines workers and the middle class.

If the European Union is destined to fall, then let the inevitable unfold. The pressing question is whether the European populace is prepared to shoulder the burden of a colossal corpse that has devoured not just the economy but also the very essence of what "Europe" once meant.

Meanwhile, in Paris, the grand evening has played out, capturing the gathering of failures who now scramble to secure whatever scraps they can from the victors. The music has ceased, the tango is over. Will there be another dance, or is it time for the final farewell?

USA and Russia as designers of the European new map

At the same time, the United States and Russia have commenced the preliminary phase of peace discussions (though it remains unclear what form this "peace" will take, despite media portrayals). The meeting in Saudi Arabia, marking the start of a series of negotiations, is not yet a definitive peace agreement for Ukraine. Instead, it appears to be an attempt to re-establish a reliable channel of communication between two global powers that have been engaged in a fierce indirect confrontation.

For this reason, both Ukraine and Europe have been excluded, with Europe relegated to a peripheral role on the world stage. A true resolution for Ukraine does not appear imminent, and the United States seems poised to withdraw its direct involvement—perhaps influenced by Trump, who has hinted at the possibility of Ukraine eventually becoming part of Russia. This does not imply that the current administration has lost interest in the war’s outcome but rather that its priorities are economic—recouping its investments in Ukraine. If Kyiv refuses to capitulate, the alternative or implied threat might be to let Moscow have its way.

My impression is that the conflict itself is not the main issue of these negotiations but rather a pretext for other geopolitical maneuvers. A swift resolution does not seem to be Washington’s priority. If peace is unattainable, the narrative may simply be minimized in the media until it fades from public consciousness. Meanwhile, the European Union, acting as the mouthpiece of traditional globalist elites, will attempt to keep the issue alive—at least until nationalist or populist movements gain ground in key European capitals.

Trump’s administration, on the other hand, will likely use these war talks as leverage to negotiate on broader issues, such as territorial claims or isolating Moscow from Beijing, along with a potential easing of sanctions. Russia, however, appears unwilling to make concessions easily, still mindful of the failed Minsk agreements. The situation remains fluid, and future negotiations may yield uncertain results.

As for Ukraine, a rapid end to the war seems unlikely, and even the United States might prefer that dwindling support and worsening conditions on the battlefield push Kyiv toward reconsidering its stance. Ukraine is already entangled with NATO—otherwise, the war wouldn't be occurring in the first place. The problem is disentangling it. When Trump states that Ukraine will not join NATO, he implies a future demilitarization, as Ukraine without NATO has no weapons.

Europe post WW3, beta edition

The central issue in Saudi Arabia is the meeting of two global leaders, each representing a nuclear superpower. This is no ordinary diplomatic gathering but rather a potential turning point—at least hypothetically—for the world’s future.

Trump is reshaping the Western geopolitical landscape, whether one approves of it or not, making the stakes exceptionally high. A significant ideological shift has taken place in the United States—one that should not be underestimated. Trump and his movement harbor a different vision for the future of humanity, the West, the East, allies, and adversaries compared to previous administrations. What is astonishing is how a few words of flattery toward Russia, its values, and multipolarism are enough to absolve the United States of decades of geopolitical transgressions.

If there is an opportunity to be seized, it must be done with caution. The Americans have deceived the Russians before, posing as sincere partners seeking to improve the world. The lesson should be clear.

Trump is unlike past American leaders. He does not adhere to the same globalist doctrine but rather an iteration tailored to the cyber era. His disguise is meticulously crafted. He—more so, the MAGA movement behind him—represents an ideological departure from previous administrations. During his first term, he struggled to implement his vision; now, he returns prepared, supported by a team that is ideologically aligned and capable of enacting swift, effective changes.

Putin and Trump must now confront this reality. Will Trump continue the conflict with Russia, or will he seek to end it? What is his stance on Europe, China, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America? These questions are crucial—not just for Russia or Europe, but for the entire world.

Only when these two global powers define their terms can discussions on Ukraine, Europe, and the broader world order truly begin. The moment is precarious, teetering between potential success and looming catastrophe.

1. by Lorenzo Maria Pacini: Associate Professor in Political Philosophy and Geopolitics, UniDolomiti of Belluno. Consultant in IR, Intelligence, and Strategic Analysis. Columnist.