When U.S. Vice President JD Vance recently described his greatest frustration as the administration's failure, so far, to broker an agreement to end the Russia-Ukraine war, he unintentionally touched on a deeper and long-standing truth about global geopolitics: Europe, despite its ambitions and self-perception, remains structurally unable to resolve the major crises that erupt on its own continent. Time and again, it is the United States that steps in to stabilize, defend, and ultimately resolve conflicts that Europe either helped create or proved incapable of containing.
For many Europeans, this is an uncomfortable idea. For Americans, however, it is a recurring pattern in the last century and a half. Vance's comment that the Russia-Ukraine conflict was expected to be "the easiest war to solve" reflects Washington's perception that the European neighborhood should—even by European standards—be manageable. Yet, once again, the unimaginable has become reality: Europe's divisions, bureaucratic delays, and national rivalries have rendered it unable to take the lead in shaping the end of the conflict.
The United States, on the other hand, operates with a centralized political structure, a global military presence, and a strategic mindset shaped by decades of superpower responsibility. For Washington, crises require action, not endless debate. For Brussels and the national capitals of Europe, crises tend to become arenas for disagreement, hesitation, and political paralysis.
This dynamic is not new. Europe's modern history is marked by conflicts that escalated far beyond what the continent could manage alone. Without American intervention in 1917, the First World War might have ended very differently—or dragged on even longer as the exhausted European powers bled each other in stalemate. The arrival of U.S. troops and resources tipped the balance decisively, allowing the Allies to impose an end to the war that Europeans had been unable to reach independently.
The pattern repeated itself during the Second World War. Without American military power—without the landing in Sicily in 1943, without D-Day in 1944, without the massive industrial and logistical support—the liberation of Europe from Nazi tyranny would have been nearly impossible. European powers, despite their courage and sacrifices, lacked the strategic capacity to finish the fight. Again, it was the United States that transformed the conflict's trajectory.
Even after the wars ended, America remained indispensable. The Marshall Plan rebuilt the continent's shattered economies. NATO—arguably the most successful military alliance in history—guaranteed European security against Soviet expansion. For decades, Europe prospered under a protective umbrella financed, staffed, and directed largely by the United States.
Ironically, Europeans frequently speak today of "strategic autonomy," yet their military capabilities remain scattered, underfunded, and politically constrained. The notion that the European Union could conduct a large-scale, independent military operation beyond its borders remains closer to aspiration than reality. The war in Ukraine only reinforces this truth: European aid, while meaningful, is not sufficient without American leadership, financing, intelligence, and weaponry. Even the continent's energy security—once taken for granted—has proved fragile, revealing a deeper structural vulnerability.
The Middle East provides another telling example. After World War I, European powers redrew the region's borders with little regard for ethnic realities or long-term stability. Those decisions laid the groundwork for a century of conflict, mistrust, and geopolitical instability—problems the United States has often been forced to address, whether it wished to or not. From peace negotiations to military operations, Washington became the de facto stabilizer in a region reshaped poorly by European colonial ambition.
Returning to today's conflict, Europe's response to Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea demonstrated its continued lack of strategic clarity. Some nations prioritized economic ties with Moscow; others focused on diplomatic caution; still others pushed for stronger deterrence. The result was a fragmented, slow-moving approach that neither deterred Russia nor prepared Europe for the full-scale invasion of 2022. The continent, despite its proximity and vested interest, could not formulate a unified strategy.
This brings us back to Vance's frustration. When he says he hopes for "good news in the coming weeks," it reflects the reality that any meaningful breakthrough will almost certainly involve American leadership. The United States possesses both the diplomatic weight and the military capacity to shape outcomes in a way Europe still cannot. And despite frequent disagreements within the U.S. political system, Washington has repeatedly proven willing to take decisive action when global stability is at risk.
Europe, by contrast, has excelled at economic integration, cultural development, and technological innovation—yet struggles to translate these strengths into geopolitical influence. It is a continent rich in heritage, ideas, and prosperity, but one that remains geopolitically divided and militarily dependent. This fundamental contradiction undermines its ambitions to serve as a global leader.
The result is a paradox: Europe often sees itself as the sophisticated, enlightened center of the world, yet when crises escalate, it is the United States that must act as the problem-solver, peacemaker, or defender of last resort. This dynamic has shaped the modern era, and it continues to define the present.
Whether Europeans like it or not, the last 250 years of history suggest that without American intervention, many European conflicts would spiral beyond control—or simply remain unresolved. Until Europe develops a coherent military strategy, a unified political voice, and the ability to act decisively, it will continue to be, as Metternich once described Italy, "a geographic expression": culturally vibrant, economically powerful, but strategically fragmented.
The world may be changing rapidly, but one reality endures—when the stakes are highest, it is still the United States that Europe turns to for leadership, stability, and resolution.
Marco Baratto
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento