Europe lacked the necessary autonomy and did not understand the nature of the Ukrainian conflict enough to take a more independent stance against the pressures of the Biden administration. This is the warning issued by Jovan Palalić, member of the Serbian Parliament and President of the Serbia–Vatican Friendship Group in the National Assembly of Serbia, in an interview with FarodiRoma.
***
The arrival of Trump marked a significant shift on the international stage. How do you interpret this?
If we start from the main slogans of President Trump during his mandates—AMERICA FIRST and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN—, we can clearly recognize the key points of his policy.
On the one hand, it undoubtedly involves a shift in the vision of America’s role in global affairs. On the other, it acknowledges the reality that other major world powers exist, each with its own interests. In a certain sense, this significant change in US policy was also announced by his Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who admitted that the world had become multipolar.
Recognizing that we live in a multipolar world and that the primary role of the new administration in Washington is to protect, above all, the interests of America and its citizens undoubtedly introduces a new dynamic in international relations—one not seen since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
For more than three decades, America sought to achieve global dominance by creating a world order in which it controlled all political, economic, and security processes in every corner of the planet, promoting or even imposing the values of liberal democracy as the ultimate and victorious form of socio-political organization, as Francis Fukuyama claimed.
This order, which in some aspects led to extreme manifestations in society—such as the woke phenomenon or wars disguised as human rights struggles—, came to an end with the election of President Trump.
In a way, we are returning to well-known models of realpolitik, which involve the division of spheres of influence among great powers and a new competition between them—not only in armaments but also in technological development, control of rare resources, and critical minerals.
‘We are witnessing the collapse of the order established in 1945’
This also means controlling certain geographic areas that can contribute to the development and strengthening of those nations. The key questions now concern how this emerging new world order will be organized and what universally accepted rules will be established to prevent chaos and avoid potential global conflicts over the control of strategic areas.
In this context, a particularly important issue is the fate of the United Nations and the role of this organization in a radically changed world.
The world is becoming uncertain and, in some ways, insecure, especially for small countries. Several years ago, I wrote that with the onset of the conflict in Ukraine, a new era of empires had begun, and that we are witnessing the collapse of the order established in 1945.
Are there realistic prospects for peace in Ukraine?
If we assume that a multipolar order implies the division of spheres of influence among new Empires and the recognition of the legitimacy of their interests in specific areas, then we can imagine that disputes between these Empires will be resolved through agreements at various strategic points.
We Europeans have historically experienced similar cases through various forms of the so-called Three Emperors’ Agreements between Russia, Germany, and Austria–Hungary. In this atmosphere—foreshadowed by the telephone communication between Presidents Putin and Trump—a settlement on the Ukrainian issue is conceivable.
Russia has special and vital interests related to its security and identity in Ukraine, while for the previous US administration, Ukraine was merely a tool for exerting pressure on Russia in pursuit of a globalist policy, which President Trump later abandoned.
‘The current issue in these negotiations lies in the clash between the new multipolar world order and the existing international legal framework’
In realpolitik, concrete realities are always taken into account. The reality of Ukraine—geopolitically significant for these agreements—concerns territorial control as a consequence of the conflict that has been ongoing for three years.
However, the current issue in these negotiations lies in the clash between the new multipolar world order and the existing international legal framework, represented by the United Nations Charter, which guarantees territorial integrity, the inviolability of borders, and condemns war. A special agreement on a specific territory, which would violate the still formally valid legal order, could open numerous frozen conflicts and territorial disputes, some of which are extremely dangerous.
To prevent the world from descending into uncontrolled chaos, the great powers—the Empires—must urgently establish new rules and a new legal framework capable of managing potential crises that could arise following an agreement on Ukraine.
The tragedy of Ukraine and its leadership lies in their failure to correctly understand their geopolitical position, the internal sentiment of their population, the actual strength of their country, and the interests of the US. Democratic administration, blinded by ideology, set an unrealistic goal—the defeat of Russia at the cost of sacrificing Ukraine.
What must be kept in mind is that an agreement on peace in Ukraine and its future does not merely involve defining the status of the country’s eastern territories and its relationship with NATO. It also includes identity and religious issues, which are at the root of internal divisions and the civil conflict.
The European ruling elites that supported the conflict seem unwilling to accept defeat. Why do you think that is, and what role should Europe play?
Europe lacked the necessary autonomy and did not understand the nature of the Ukrainian conflict enough to take a more independent stance against the pressures of the Biden administration. Due to an unacceptable level of naivety and ignorance, Europe did not develop a clear policy regarding this conflict, nor did it define goals aimed at protecting its economic and security interests, while Biden’s America knew exactly what it wanted and how to use Brussels and Kyiv to achieve its objectives.
The introduction of 16 packages of sanctions against Russia, the severing of energy cooperation—especially in the import of Russian gas—and the spending of billions of euros by European taxpayers on arming Ukraine, instead of investing those funds in the economy and technological development to increase competitiveness, led to an energy crisis and economic recession, with the loss of many markets and layoffs in some of Europe’s largest companies.
Instead of signing a permanent security agreement with Russia through the Minsk agreements, Europe became nothing more than a tool in the hands of the previous US administration, which sabotaged those agreements through European decisions and made the EU dependent not only in terms of security but also energy, imposing on it the purchase of American gas at multiple times the price of Russian gas.
Now, President Trump is negotiating an agreement with President Putin, which, according to initial assessments, will be less favourable for both Ukraine and Europe compared to the Minsk agreements. This new deal between the US and Russia on the Ukrainian issue will ultimately benefit both powers, as they know how to protect their interests—and only their interests.
‘It is necessary to overcome another form of blind ideological extremism in Brussels…so that sustainable agreements can be reached with Moscow in the areas of energy and security’
Although the current administration in Brussels may view this as heresy, it would be better to first acknowledge that epochal geopolitical transformations are underway, reflect on the mistakes made, and change course.
This means, on the one hand, abandoning the ideological fanaticism that prevents the establishment of firm and clear relations with President Trump, both in security and trade, so that the West can act more coherently in an increasingly complex multipolar world.
On the other hand, it is necessary to overcome another form of blind ideological extremism in Brussels—the one that has pushed Europe into harmful Russophobia—so that sustainable agreements can be reached with Moscow in the areas of energy and security, opening a period of renewed growth and stability for the continent.
If Europe can overcome these two ideological prejudices towards the actors now negotiating over Ukraine—an issue that directly determines Europe’s future—, Brussels and European capitals will be able to participate in the talks and protect their interests.
If, however, they continue to reject the emerging world order, clinging to illusions of power and centrality, I fear that our beloved Europe is, in the long run, doomed to become nothing more than the periphery of Eurasia—where history is being written today and a new global balance is taking shape.
Read more interviews:
