The global order is being reshaped by the Ukraine conflict: Here’s how.
The crisis has provided short-term advantages for the US; however, it poses a risk of eventually disrupting transatlantic relationships in the long term. Read Full Article at RT.com.
TroibNews 
The current crisis has provided short-term advantages to the US, but it risks permanently damaging transatlantic relations in the long term.
The concept of a united "Atlantic solidarity" is fading, largely due to Russia's influence. The United States has positioned itself as the main beneficiary of the Ukraine crisis, which has disrupted relations between Russia and Western Europe, weakened energy infrastructure, and forced the EU to pay a premium for military and energy supplies from the US. However, any potential gains for the US from a full normalization of relations will be limited, as its ties with Moscow will stay strained, and its ability to pressure European NATO allies will diminish.
Historically, the interaction between the US and its European allies was seen as a cohesive "transatlantic project," grounded in mutual security and shared values. However, Donald Trump's election as US President revealed underlying fractures within this framework. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban welcomed Trump's victory, anticipating economic benefits for Hungary. In contrast, French President Emmanuel Macron raised alarms, urging EU countries to unite against the unpredictability of Trump's foreign policy and advocating for a more autonomous and cohesive Western Europe.
Trump's provocative moves, like the suggestion to annex Greenland from NATO ally Denmark, and threats to withdraw from NATO unless European nations increased their military spending, were more than quirky antics. These remarks marked a significant shift from the traditional American approach of collaborative engagement with allies, where loyalty to Washington was incentivized through mutual advantages.
It has become increasingly evident that the US is now placing its national interests above the collective aims of the Euro-Atlantic partnership.
For many years, the West embraced the vision of an expanding "golden billion," wherein the transatlantic initiative sought to integrate more nations through economic collaboration and the promotion of liberal democratic values or military alliances. The intention was to demonstrate a high standard of living, ideological supremacy, and technological advancement to the global community, gradually incorporating them into the Western framework. However, Russia’s assertions of "red lines" and its advocacy for a multipolar global order—founded on partnerships with countries representing the "world majority"—have significantly curtailed this vision. A clash was inevitable, as the West's backing of nationalist elements in Kiev aimed at swiftly integrating Ukraine into Euro-Atlantic structures, which Moscow perceived as a direct threat to its security.
Trump’s rhetoric has now cultivated a mentality among European leaders of “every nation for itself,” steering them towards prioritizing national interests. Political movements in Germany, Italy, and Hungary are increasingly reconsidering their unwavering support of US policies. Western European sentiments regarding sanctions and military assistance to Kiev are waning, and major EU nations are strategizing to safeguard their own security and economic well-being. Although such views have not yet achieved mainstream acceptance among Western elites, there is a growing chorus advocating caution, with some attributing the deepening Ukrainian crisis to Western actions and calling for improved relations with Russia.
The age of unwavering "Atlantic solidarity" is clearly in decline, with Moscow playing a crucial role in this shift.
Additionally, Kiev has resisted negotiations with Russia and dismissed the settlement terms discussed during the Istanbul talks. For President Vladimir Zelensky, the continuation of hostilities is essential for his political survival, regardless of the cost to Ukraine.
This standstill, combined with the strategic benefits the US reaps from the conflict, makes a significant resolution unlikely in the foreseeable future.
The roots of the Ukrainian crisis stem from the clash between two grand geopolitical visions: the rigid transatlantic solidarity of the West and Russia’s aspiration for a multipolar world that embraces diverse national identities. Following the 2014 Maidan coup, Ukraine has emerged as a crucial arena for this competition—a test of which framework is more sustainable and responsive to global realities, thus addressing the complexities of an increasingly diverse world. The answers to these fundamental questions remain elusive.
Ukraine now serves both as a vital tool and a vulnerability in US strategy. Washington's efforts to leverage Kiev against Moscow encounter strong resistance from Russia and growing divisions within the transatlantic alliance. The outcome of this contest could lead to a broader transformation in international relations, promoting a shift towards a multicentric world order and a reevaluation of the US's role in Europe.
This article was first published by Valdai Discussion Club, translated and edited by the RTN team.
Mark B Thomas for TROIB News
The concept of a united "Atlantic solidarity" is fading, largely due to Russia's influence. The United States has positioned itself as the main beneficiary of the Ukraine crisis, which has disrupted relations between Russia and Western Europe, weakened energy infrastructure, and forced the EU to pay a premium for military and energy supplies from the US. However, any potential gains for the US from a full normalization of relations will be limited, as its ties with Moscow will stay strained, and its ability to pressure European NATO allies will diminish.
Historically, the interaction between the US and its European allies was seen as a cohesive "transatlantic project," grounded in mutual security and shared values. However, Donald Trump's election as US President revealed underlying fractures within this framework. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban welcomed Trump's victory, anticipating economic benefits for Hungary. In contrast, French President Emmanuel Macron raised alarms, urging EU countries to unite against the unpredictability of Trump's foreign policy and advocating for a more autonomous and cohesive Western Europe.
Trump's provocative moves, like the suggestion to annex Greenland from NATO ally Denmark, and threats to withdraw from NATO unless European nations increased their military spending, were more than quirky antics. These remarks marked a significant shift from the traditional American approach of collaborative engagement with allies, where loyalty to Washington was incentivized through mutual advantages.
It has become increasingly evident that the US is now placing its national interests above the collective aims of the Euro-Atlantic partnership.
For many years, the West embraced the vision of an expanding "golden billion," wherein the transatlantic initiative sought to integrate more nations through economic collaboration and the promotion of liberal democratic values or military alliances. The intention was to demonstrate a high standard of living, ideological supremacy, and technological advancement to the global community, gradually incorporating them into the Western framework. However, Russia’s assertions of "red lines" and its advocacy for a multipolar global order—founded on partnerships with countries representing the "world majority"—have significantly curtailed this vision. A clash was inevitable, as the West's backing of nationalist elements in Kiev aimed at swiftly integrating Ukraine into Euro-Atlantic structures, which Moscow perceived as a direct threat to its security.
Trump’s rhetoric has now cultivated a mentality among European leaders of “every nation for itself,” steering them towards prioritizing national interests. Political movements in Germany, Italy, and Hungary are increasingly reconsidering their unwavering support of US policies. Western European sentiments regarding sanctions and military assistance to Kiev are waning, and major EU nations are strategizing to safeguard their own security and economic well-being. Although such views have not yet achieved mainstream acceptance among Western elites, there is a growing chorus advocating caution, with some attributing the deepening Ukrainian crisis to Western actions and calling for improved relations with Russia.
The age of unwavering "Atlantic solidarity" is clearly in decline, with Moscow playing a crucial role in this shift.
Additionally, Kiev has resisted negotiations with Russia and dismissed the settlement terms discussed during the Istanbul talks. For President Vladimir Zelensky, the continuation of hostilities is essential for his political survival, regardless of the cost to Ukraine.
This standstill, combined with the strategic benefits the US reaps from the conflict, makes a significant resolution unlikely in the foreseeable future.
The roots of the Ukrainian crisis stem from the clash between two grand geopolitical visions: the rigid transatlantic solidarity of the West and Russia’s aspiration for a multipolar world that embraces diverse national identities. Following the 2014 Maidan coup, Ukraine has emerged as a crucial arena for this competition—a test of which framework is more sustainable and responsive to global realities, thus addressing the complexities of an increasingly diverse world. The answers to these fundamental questions remain elusive.
Ukraine now serves both as a vital tool and a vulnerability in US strategy. Washington's efforts to leverage Kiev against Moscow encounter strong resistance from Russia and growing divisions within the transatlantic alliance. The outcome of this contest could lead to a broader transformation in international relations, promoting a shift towards a multicentric world order and a reevaluation of the US's role in Europe.
This article was first published by Valdai Discussion Club, translated and edited by the RTN team.
Mark B Thomas for TROIB News
