Daniel Attard: Pragmatism, Not Ego, Will End The War In Ukraine
The biggest miscalculation of this war came from Vladimir Putin, who arrogantly believed he could swiftly overrun Ukraine and celebrate victory in Kyiv within days. His hubris blinded him to the resilience of the Ukrainian people and their determination to defend their sovereignty.
Ukraine’s resistance has been nothing short of extraordinary. Instead of fleeing, President Zelenskyy stood firm, inspiring his nation and galvanising global support for Ukraine’s fight against Russian tyranny.
The second-largest miscalculation came from Europe.
While some leaders, such as Emmanuel Macron and Josep Borrell, made earnest attempts to pursue peace, the broader European response often fell short. From ineffective sanctions to severing nearly all diplomatic ties with Moscow, many European leaders backed themselves into a corner.
By closely following the Biden administration’s lead and embracing grandiose Churchillian rhetoric, they inadvertently masked the devastating economic consequences the war inflicted on nearly every European economy.
Germany, once an economic powerhouse, now struggles under the weight of energy crises and inflation. Many European nations are still grappling with the fallout from soaring energy costs. In war, it’s not just about territory but also about global standing. As a continent, we have declined significantly in both.
Now, with President Trump back in the White House, Europe finds itself sidelined from a peace process dominated entirely by the Americans.
The current 30-day ceasefire proposal is a positive step, but it remains far from resolving the conflict.
At the time of writing, Russia is reportedly considering the American proposal following Ukraine’s clever strategic shift, which has placed renewed pressure on Moscow.
If Russia rejects the offer, the White House may escalate its support for Ukraine to force the Kremlin back to the negotiating table. If Moscow accepts the temporary pause, the path forward will remain long and fraught with challenges.
Yet, through it all, it is President Trump who is leading the charge — whether we like it or not.
After three years of relentless warfare at an immense human cost, Ursula von der Leyen and numerous European leaders have squandered both credibility and influence. Roberta Metsola, eager for the spotlight, has aligned herself with their failing strategies, offering little more than hollow gestures and rhetorical posturing. This is the sad state of political leadership in Europe: our continent’s future is shaped not in Brussels, but in Jeddah and Washington.
The lack of strategic thinking and the glaring leadership vacuum are infuriating. And let’s not even begin to address Gaza, where the failure is even more egregious.
Von der Leyen and others, with Metsola fronting the charge, have not only forfeited their credibility on Gaza but also abandoned basic moral principles. They cannot even muster a hollow condemnation of Benjamin Netanyahu, whom the International Criminal Court seeks for crimes against humanity, let alone call Israel’s actions what they are: genocide.
It’s disheartening to see Brussels continue to parrot Washington’s lead while failing to name the mass atrocity against thousands of children for what it truly is: A crime against humanity!
In Ukraine, over the past three years, Europe has borne the full cost of the war — matching American arms spending while suffering severe economic damage — only to find itself excluded from key decision-making tables concerning its own continent.
On the military front, after three grueling years, the war has devolved into a bloody stalemate.
A war of attrition exacts a massive human toll, with brothers, fathers, and sons dying daily. Ukraine hasn’t reclaimed significant territory in two years, and Russia’s gains remain minimal. Experts estimate that, at this pace, it would take Putin 88 years to fully conquer Ukraine — an absurd proposition given the realities on the ground.
The Kremlin may have seized some territory, but at great cost. Its military shortcomings are undeniable: flawed logistics, outdated tactics, and overstretched resources. If anything is certain, it’s that the modern Red Army falls woefully short of Putin’s pseudo-Soviet ambitions — at least for now.
Both sides are bleeding economically. Ukraine’s economy survives precariously on Western aid, while sacrificing valuable natural assets to sustain the war effort. Russia, despite sanctions, continues to pour resources into the conflict, burning through cash and conscripts.
It is abundantly clear that the cost of this war is unsustainable. Yet, for the past three years, the prevailing rhetoric from Brussels and other European capitals was to fight endlessly, with no end in sight.
President Trump’s “America First” approach has rattled NATO and the European Union. While Europe steps up financially and militarily, it lacks the capacity to act independently. Increased defence spending, funded by already struggling European economies, may fuel domestic unrest — and populists will exploit it.
This is why Malta’s position opposing further increases in arms financing is commendable. Fueling a forever war makes absolutely no sense, especially when those resources could be better suited to addressing humanitarian needs, rebuilding shattered communities, or investing in diplomacy and conflict resolution. Pouring money into an endless cycle of destruction not only prolongs suffering but also squanders opportunities for meaningful progress.
Without sustained American support — including intelligence, Starlink, and advanced weaponry — Ukraine will be in a considerably weaker position, regardless of Europe’s increased investment. President Trump understands this dynamic very well: without U.S. backing, Ukraine’s defenses will crumble. He holds the cards, and his stance on peace negotiations is pivotal — as evidenced by the awkward meeting in the Oval Office with President Zelenskyy.
Peace talks, difficult as they may be, are the only sensible way forward.
As U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has suggested, returning to the 2014 borders is unlikely in any realistic peace deal. Whether Russia retains any Ukrainian territory despite its illegal aggression must be determined through negotiations — negotiations that must include Ukraine.
It is not hard to imagine a scenario where Russia keeps some land. But such an outcome raises critical questions:
Is that a price Ukrainians are willing to pay for peace?
What will Russia concede in return?
And what guarantees does Ukraine need to prevent a future resurgence of war?
These decisions ultimately rest with Ukraine, not Brussels. There is significant leverage against Putin, and he knows that if he fails to show openness to a peace agreement, the United States may resume supporting Ukraine until he does.
While there are no guarantees that negotiations will succeed, the alternative is far worse.
Europe, however, faces a stark reality check.
Over the past three years, it has escalated the war while misjudging its own strategic position. Now, with the United States shifting toward peace talks and leaving Europe behind, Brussels risks appearing ineffective and politically impotent.
But pragmatism must prevail, not individual egos.
European leaders must acknowledge their miscalculations, learn from them, and adapt to the emergence of a new geopolitical order — or resign themselves to irrelevance in shaping the world’s future.
Daniel Attard is a Labour MEP