Much has been sealed with a handshake: the Good Friday agreement that finally silenced the Ulster guns, Begin and Sadat’s improbable reconciliation at Camp David under Jimmy Carter’s steadfast gaze, even Rabin’s hesitant clasp with Arafat on the White House lawn.
It is a relief to see Europe finally coming to the realization that they cannot continue to rely on the US as a reliable (or even credible) international enforcer of the principles of democracy and the tenets of liberal world order established after two World Wars.
“The United Nations Charter contains provisions that prohibit the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, which encompasses attacks to change borders.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: This article is a core principle forbidding the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
Article 51 of the UN Charter: This article allows for the right of individual or collective self-defense in response to an armed attack. However, this right is an exception to the general prohibition and is subject to Security Council oversight.”
Putin’s attacks on Ukraine are illegal under international law, and there can be no discussion about coercing Ukraine to cede territory seized illegitimately. Putin is already under summons by the International Criminal Court for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation. The ICC is also aware of other crimes against humanity that Russian troops have committed against Ukrainian civilians. Putin is an international pariah and not a valid “world leader” worthy of the pomp Trump lavished on him.
The Russian Federation in its entirety also is not worthy of this level of fear and concern. The annual GDP of the US is around $30 trillion. The GDP of the EU and UK is approximately $24 trillion. Russia’s GDP is a heavily sanctioned $2 trillion (about the size of Italy). The late Senator John McCain accurately described Russia as a “gas station masquerading as a country.”
After three years of sanctions and unproductive war expenditures, Russia’s economy is severely stressed, mainly kept afloat by discounting petroleum sales to India and China. Russia’s allies are fellow pariah nations Iran and North Korea. The USSR collapsed just a few decades ago, and it seems the RF is following in its footsteps.
While the military actions in Ukraine dominate the news cycle, it is a distraction from Russia’s dire domestic situation. I have often stated that the war in Ukraine ends when the civil war in Russia begins. There are two fronts in this battle, Ukraine and domestically. Putin is losing both.
Now is not the time to capitulate to Putin’s bluff. A concentrated international effort to sabotage Russia’s feeble economy and to encourage resistance to Putin’s oligarchy. There are other Alexei Navalny opposition leaders waiting for their chance to force a regime change. Find them and give them the opportunities they need to end this nightmare.
John, thank you for the fascinating addition and for taking the time to review my work!
You raise several important points that deserve a nuanced response:
You’re absolutely right that Europe is being forced to confront questions about transatlantic reliability. The June 2025 NATO summit in The Hague resulted in allies agreeing to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, a historic shift that reflects both Trump’s pressure and genuine European concerns about long-term U.S. commitment. This presents enormous fiscal challenges for European nations already struggling with debt burdens, but I would agree that it is vital.
I would argue thought that the U.S. will likely maintain its defense spending dominance due to projected increases in the American defense budget, particularly given Indo-Pacific priorities. This suggests that European strategic autonomy is about developing genuine independent capabilities, as much as about spending levels.
In terms of Russian opposition, I would suggest that this has become significantly more fragmented and weakened since Navalny’s death in February 2024. The opposition-led regime change you envision faces enormous structural obstacles, though this is perhaps an inevitability or the best outcome in the long-run.
What are your thoughts on the feasibility of European strategic autonomy given the fiscal constraints many allies face?
I was stationed in Germany in the 1960s. The rubble was still being cleared from the devastation of two World Wars, and it was the height of the Cold War with Russia. Defense of Europe was still mainly tanks and bombers or, of course, “Mutually Assured Destruction” via nuclear-armed ICBM missiles.
Europe could not afford to both rebuild infrastructure and rearm at the same time. There was no united Europe and the traumas of WWII were still being grieved. Germany was still physically divided and Eastern Europe languished under the thumb of Soviet communism. The U.S. conceived and dominated NATO, not so much as a credible defense of Europe, but as a strategic ‘shock absorber’, a ‘speed bump’ should Russia attack. NATO became Europe’s comfortable ‘suicide pact’ subconsciously knowing they had few alternative options.
Then the oil prices dropped and the USSR collapsed further reinforcing a false sense of European security. This gave some breathing room so the EU could be formed even though there was no unified thought given to border security and a unified military defense. The new Russian Federation made efforts to westernize and Europe sank into a stupor of prosperity and consumption letting benevolent Uncle Sam pick up the defense tab for everyone.
The 9-11 attacks sent shockwaves worldwide dashing the illusions of US invincibility. Nobody was prepared to battle a non-state foe utilizing asymmetric low-tech guerrilla warfare. The War on Terror became a chaotic fiasco sending millions of refugees into neighboring Europe unprepared for a unified response. A huge bribe was paid to Turkey to slow the tide and provide some time for Europe to organize.
Then, the unthinkable happened - Russia went rogue and attacked Ukraine, and directly threatened European security. The US, exhausted and humiliated by the never-ending Middle East conflicts and economic hardships, blinked in coming to the defense of Ukraine and Europe. Trump’s incompetence and buffoonery made it undeniably clear that Europe’s post war adolescence had ended and there was no choice but to fledge and become self reliant.
The silver lining in all of this is the Ukraine War has demonstrated that national defense can now be nimble and efficient rather than expensive and ponderous. Satellites and drones have decimated Russia’s antiquated hardware and tactics. Nuclear threats are not credible and Ukraine has demonstrated they can use relatively inexpensive stealth and technology to counter Russia’s outdated armor and tactics.
Europe can create an autonomous defense force utilizing modern hardware and tactics without breaking the bank. Brutal trench warfare will not defeat Russia, but coordinated asymmetric tactics combined insurgence from within Russia will succeed. Technology and intelligence is the defense needed for today’s world.
I think the guy with the ccp shirt said it all. Dump having our airmen roll out a red carpet. It’s disgusting. Not what the un United States are about. Until you have trump who owes Putin . Giggling in the limo. Clapping like a seal. 🦭
For a nation that was once the poster boy of ‘liberalism’, this really does look like a surrender of soft power. That being said, I wonder how much revisionist powers do indeed care about the reputation of the US vs tangible security guarantees and economic sanction? Totally agree though that it was a shocking welcome.
Thank you so much Lionel! appreciate your comment so much. Couldn’t agree more - it’s time for us to wake up to the devastation this comment is causing.
VedJournal! thank you for reading my post, very grateful for your comment.
I have to agree that the historical/moral framing of the conflict is incredibly important, especially in Putin’s eyes. Your raise an interesting point about Russia feeling ‘wronged’ for the collapse of the USSR and the selling of Alaska after the Crimea War. I would have to add that I think there are symmetric considerations on Trump’s side! At least in so far as domestic pressures are concerned.
Thank you for the comment Graeme! Appreciate you taking the time to review. Just published latest on the Washington summit as there’s definitely been an improvement in rhetoric https://anyatrofimova.substack.com/p/allies-assemble-white-house-summit Would love to hear your thoughts if you’re interested!
It’s a good read
But in my opinion, and i don’t know if it was on purpose, but the vocabulary was a little bit intense
And if your aim was writing for the public to read then it’s wont be bad to simplify somethings
Just my opinion
But it was really informative for me 😌
Thank you so much! Appreciate your comment and you taking the time to review. Noted, will absolutely work on that for the future.
Very well written. It was intense and I felt the tension and urgency.
Thank you Michelle! appreciate you taking the time to read and comment
Well done, Anya, well done.
Denis, thank you so much! Truly appreciate you taking the time to review my work.
It is a relief to see Europe finally coming to the realization that they cannot continue to rely on the US as a reliable (or even credible) international enforcer of the principles of democracy and the tenets of liberal world order established after two World Wars.
“The United Nations Charter contains provisions that prohibit the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, which encompasses attacks to change borders.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: This article is a core principle forbidding the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
Article 51 of the UN Charter: This article allows for the right of individual or collective self-defense in response to an armed attack. However, this right is an exception to the general prohibition and is subject to Security Council oversight.”
Putin’s attacks on Ukraine are illegal under international law, and there can be no discussion about coercing Ukraine to cede territory seized illegitimately. Putin is already under summons by the International Criminal Court for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation. The ICC is also aware of other crimes against humanity that Russian troops have committed against Ukrainian civilians. Putin is an international pariah and not a valid “world leader” worthy of the pomp Trump lavished on him.
The Russian Federation in its entirety also is not worthy of this level of fear and concern. The annual GDP of the US is around $30 trillion. The GDP of the EU and UK is approximately $24 trillion. Russia’s GDP is a heavily sanctioned $2 trillion (about the size of Italy). The late Senator John McCain accurately described Russia as a “gas station masquerading as a country.”
After three years of sanctions and unproductive war expenditures, Russia’s economy is severely stressed, mainly kept afloat by discounting petroleum sales to India and China. Russia’s allies are fellow pariah nations Iran and North Korea. The USSR collapsed just a few decades ago, and it seems the RF is following in its footsteps.
While the military actions in Ukraine dominate the news cycle, it is a distraction from Russia’s dire domestic situation. I have often stated that the war in Ukraine ends when the civil war in Russia begins. There are two fronts in this battle, Ukraine and domestically. Putin is losing both.
Now is not the time to capitulate to Putin’s bluff. A concentrated international effort to sabotage Russia’s feeble economy and to encourage resistance to Putin’s oligarchy. There are other Alexei Navalny opposition leaders waiting for their chance to force a regime change. Find them and give them the opportunities they need to end this nightmare.
John, thank you for the fascinating addition and for taking the time to review my work!
You raise several important points that deserve a nuanced response:
You’re absolutely right that Europe is being forced to confront questions about transatlantic reliability. The June 2025 NATO summit in The Hague resulted in allies agreeing to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, a historic shift that reflects both Trump’s pressure and genuine European concerns about long-term U.S. commitment. This presents enormous fiscal challenges for European nations already struggling with debt burdens, but I would agree that it is vital.
I would argue thought that the U.S. will likely maintain its defense spending dominance due to projected increases in the American defense budget, particularly given Indo-Pacific priorities. This suggests that European strategic autonomy is about developing genuine independent capabilities, as much as about spending levels.
In terms of Russian opposition, I would suggest that this has become significantly more fragmented and weakened since Navalny’s death in February 2024. The opposition-led regime change you envision faces enormous structural obstacles, though this is perhaps an inevitability or the best outcome in the long-run.
What are your thoughts on the feasibility of European strategic autonomy given the fiscal constraints many allies face?
“Necessity is the mother of invention.”
I was stationed in Germany in the 1960s. The rubble was still being cleared from the devastation of two World Wars, and it was the height of the Cold War with Russia. Defense of Europe was still mainly tanks and bombers or, of course, “Mutually Assured Destruction” via nuclear-armed ICBM missiles.
Europe could not afford to both rebuild infrastructure and rearm at the same time. There was no united Europe and the traumas of WWII were still being grieved. Germany was still physically divided and Eastern Europe languished under the thumb of Soviet communism. The U.S. conceived and dominated NATO, not so much as a credible defense of Europe, but as a strategic ‘shock absorber’, a ‘speed bump’ should Russia attack. NATO became Europe’s comfortable ‘suicide pact’ subconsciously knowing they had few alternative options.
Then the oil prices dropped and the USSR collapsed further reinforcing a false sense of European security. This gave some breathing room so the EU could be formed even though there was no unified thought given to border security and a unified military defense. The new Russian Federation made efforts to westernize and Europe sank into a stupor of prosperity and consumption letting benevolent Uncle Sam pick up the defense tab for everyone.
The 9-11 attacks sent shockwaves worldwide dashing the illusions of US invincibility. Nobody was prepared to battle a non-state foe utilizing asymmetric low-tech guerrilla warfare. The War on Terror became a chaotic fiasco sending millions of refugees into neighboring Europe unprepared for a unified response. A huge bribe was paid to Turkey to slow the tide and provide some time for Europe to organize.
Then, the unthinkable happened - Russia went rogue and attacked Ukraine, and directly threatened European security. The US, exhausted and humiliated by the never-ending Middle East conflicts and economic hardships, blinked in coming to the defense of Ukraine and Europe. Trump’s incompetence and buffoonery made it undeniably clear that Europe’s post war adolescence had ended and there was no choice but to fledge and become self reliant.
The silver lining in all of this is the Ukraine War has demonstrated that national defense can now be nimble and efficient rather than expensive and ponderous. Satellites and drones have decimated Russia’s antiquated hardware and tactics. Nuclear threats are not credible and Ukraine has demonstrated they can use relatively inexpensive stealth and technology to counter Russia’s outdated armor and tactics.
Europe can create an autonomous defense force utilizing modern hardware and tactics without breaking the bank. Brutal trench warfare will not defeat Russia, but coordinated asymmetric tactics combined insurgence from within Russia will succeed. Technology and intelligence is the defense needed for today’s world.
I think the guy with the ccp shirt said it all. Dump having our airmen roll out a red carpet. It’s disgusting. Not what the un United States are about. Until you have trump who owes Putin . Giggling in the limo. Clapping like a seal. 🦭
For a nation that was once the poster boy of ‘liberalism’, this really does look like a surrender of soft power. That being said, I wonder how much revisionist powers do indeed care about the reputation of the US vs tangible security guarantees and economic sanction? Totally agree though that it was a shocking welcome.
What an amazing piece @AnyaTrofimova77. Such research is necessary so people wake up to the truth about all this conflict.
By the way thanks so much for the comment also. I love the idea of creator supporting another creator.
Once kudos and great job
Thank you so much Lionel! appreciate your comment so much. Couldn’t agree more - it’s time for us to wake up to the devastation this comment is causing.
Hey Anya, i appreciate you for deep research in Trump and Putin meetup conclusion.
Both Presidents are working on financial and capital gains.
Russia already lost their land area during soviet union deformation.
Especially many countries oncenthe part of society union join NATO
And biggest mistake is selling Alaska to USA and Compulsion too.
Now it's the matter of security and national interest i.e Russia already claimed the boundary parts of Ukraine.
It's really difficult to stop the war but I think low sanctions and tariff could could hold the war for few months.
No sanctions, no mention of a ceasefire, not even the pretence of a ‘deal’.
Thanks for sharing and keep writing 👏 👍
VedJournal! thank you for reading my post, very grateful for your comment.
I have to agree that the historical/moral framing of the conflict is incredibly important, especially in Putin’s eyes. Your raise an interesting point about Russia feeling ‘wronged’ for the collapse of the USSR and the selling of Alaska after the Crimea War. I would have to add that I think there are symmetric considerations on Trump’s side! At least in so far as domestic pressures are concerned.
The photo is touted as trump stressing something important to Putin but my reading of the image suggests he is more likely admiring his tie.
The fellow is likely to be a Putin double. Great article.
Thank you for the comment Graeme! Appreciate you taking the time to review. Just published latest on the Washington summit as there’s definitely been an improvement in rhetoric https://anyatrofimova.substack.com/p/allies-assemble-white-house-summit Would love to hear your thoughts if you’re interested!