Europe has doubled down on the protracted conflict in Ukraine

To highlight the isolation of the Patriots, the main-right group, EPP, opposed by introducing a resolution on Ukraine. They were joined by other centrists – socialists, liberals, Greens – and pro-Ukraine from the group European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), the fourth largest group of the coalition. The five political groups presented a tough joint text, which calls, among other things, for the removal of any restrictions on the use of Western weapons brought to Ukraine against military targets in the region of Russia.

Lawmakers also “reiterated their belief that Ukraine is on the irreversible path of NATO” even though the European Parliament has no say over NATO and several EU members (Austria, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus) is not a member of NATO and has not shown, so far, any inclination to join it.

It reflects Brussels’ fallout over Viktor Orban’s talks that took him in recent weeks to Kyiv, Moscow, Beijing, Washington, and Trump’s Mar-a-Lago on what he called a “peace mission.” the decision made a point of criticizing him for “violating the common standards of the EU” and failing to cooperate with other member states and EU institutions.

Lawmakers demanded “consequences for Hungary.” Although these effects have already been produced by the attempts to reject the rotating EU presidency of Hungary, no interest has been shown in the matter of Orban’s views which he expressed in a letter to the president of the EU Council Charles Michel.

Given the extent to which Orban chose to emphasize that it would have been a very careful and prudent diplomatic strategy, there can be reasonable doubts about its effectiveness. . However, the problem is that he is the only EU leader left who enjoys open lines of communication with the Kremlin, while “respectable” European leaders often trade in maximalist rhetoric about the Ukrainian victory. and the defeat of Russia without explaining those words, much. less to provide reliable means of their success.

The Patriots for Europe presented another proposal regarding Ukraine that was very different from the majority decision. Although they condemned Russia’s aggressive actions and expressed support for the independence and integrity of the Ukrainian state within its internationally recognized borders (including Donbass and Crimea), they also recalled that each member “is independent in their decisions to provide financial, military and diplomatic support to third. countries.”

They also stressed their conviction that there is no military solution to the conflict and that peace is the only sustainable solution. Therefore, they urged the parties to “open channels of dialogue, with the aim of concluding a lasting peace agreement.”

These two steps exposed the irreconcilable differences in the approach of the two sides in the conflict in Ukraine; therefore, negotiations to reach an agreement proved impossible or undesirable. Instead, political points were to be found: the majority wanted to portray the Riders as stooges of Russian President Vladimir Putin, while the Patriots accused the majority of escalating the conflict by pursue unattainable goals and weaken the European economy.

As expected, the majority text was approved by a majority: 495 votes to 137. The amendments made by the Left group, aimed at paving the way for the media solution, were all rejected. . This means: while it may have been politically unpopular for centrists to vote for the Patriots’ proposals, no such illegal restrictions exist on the far left; therefore, the rejection of diplomatic negotiations seems to be a matter of choice, not just political expediency.

The “centrist” majority also rejected the Left’s (relatively moderate) reform that condemned the double standard used by the EU on international violations by Russia in Ukraine and Israel in Gaza.

Although the leaders of many groups they boasted about sending “another strong message” to Orban, not all lawmakers seem convinced. Michael von Schulenberg, a member of parliament from Sahra Vagenknecht’s left-wing party in Germany and a former UN ambassador, lamented that the majority plan was created “to continue and intensify the war until a military victory against Russia, which then it’s not real.” Rejecting efforts to find a peaceful solution, in his view, will continue to cause “immeasurable suffering for the Ukrainian people.”

As a recent survey from the European Council on Foreign Relations has shown, such views are widespread among Europeans, including voters of the main political parties. However, as the first part of the new European Parliament showed, they are destined to remain alone in the meeting that is said to represent them.

Almost the same assembly (except for the majority of the ECR and some weakness in the center-right, such as the Gaullists in France) that voted for the Ukraine resolution also voted for von der Leyen, a Russian hawk , for a second season. In addition to this, the name of the former prime minister of Estonia, Kaja Kallas, who once advocated for Russia to be cut off, as the EU’s high representative for foreign policy, and the adjustment of EU institutions in favor for Ukraine to move forward.

This power of the EU, however, could change if the Trump-Vance administration could bring fear (or expected, depending on one’s opinion) to sink America in Europe. In that case, Europeans will either have to fight Russia in Ukraine with limited US support or seriously consider how the end of the war can be achieved.