Sovereignty.
How Europe lost the Russo-Ukraine war.
Russia’s war on Ukraine is, at its core, a battle over sovereignty. Not just in the legal sense, but in the raw, unfiltered reality of power and survival. It is a war over who gets to decide Ukraine’s future—Ukraine itself, or an external force imposing its will through military occupation, coercion, and exhaustion. While Ukraine fights, it is Europe (for these purposes:EU+EEA+UK) that has already lost. Not militarily, because Europe never truly fought (and therein partly lies the problem), but strategically and politically. Europe’s failure to act decisively, despite its immense wealth, industrial power, and population advantage over Russia, raises an uncomfortable question: can a state or a bloc be sovereign if it cannot defend itself, let alone its close partners?
Ukraine, exhausted and battered, still retains outsize agency over its fate given its small economic and geopolitical stature. Europe, despite all its resources, has demonstrated its inability to act independently in matters of war and peace. If sovereignty means the ability to defend one’s way of life, then Europe has abdicated its sovereignty.
The Meaning of Sovereignty in War
Over time, this war has become a test of competing definitions of sovereignty. The traditional understanding is that sovereignty means supreme authority within a defined territory, the power to make and enforce laws without external interference, and recognition by other states as an independent entity. By this standard, Ukraine as an independent state remains sovereign insofar as it continues to govern itself, negotiate treaties, and exercise political authority over the land it controls. Russia does not govern Ukraine, nor has Ukraine surrendered its independence.
But sovereignty is more than just legal recognition. It is the ability to enforce one’s own sovereignty, rather than relying on others to maintain it. In many ways, Ukraine has relied on the West, especially the USA, but it fought off the Russians in the beginning on its own and only then began to receive major support. Moreover, aware of this risk, Ukraine is developing an industrial military complex at breakneck speed.
For Vladimir Putin, sovereignty is not just about international law or political autonomy but about raw power. A sovereign state, in his view, must be militarily self-sufficient and independent of foreign influence. It must be able to act unilaterally, without needing permission from global institutions, and "A sovereign state must be able to defend itself, its citizens, and its national interests."If a country cannot do this, it is, his view, a vassal or a colony, regardless of what its legal status might say.
The European Union, by contrast, has developed a model of sovereignty that is based on pooling resources and sharing power. Member states cede some authority to supranational institutions in exchange for economic stability and collective security. This has created a system where sovereignty is not absolute but shared, with the assumption that strategic alliances can provide the protection once guaranteed by national military strength. In peacetime, this model appeared to work. But the Russo-Ukrainian war has exposed its limitations. Europe has the economy, the industry, and the population to outmatch Russia militarily, yet it has shown that it cannot act decisively without U.S. leadership. Why is a continent of 550 million people begging a country of 350 million to defend it?
Ukraine has defended itself as best as it could against a much larger enemy - and continues to do so. Europe cannot say the same.
The Battle for Political Sovereignty
Who knows what will come out of the talks between the US and Russia. Since Russia still insists on taking four Ukrainian territories that it does not fully control, I think a deal remains unlikely. Of course, perhaps Trump will insist these territories and people are handed over to Russia, we cannot rule that out. Maybe European troops will be sent to manage the handover, like the American flunkies Putin thinks we are. Even then, it won’t be a peace deal as Russia will not rest while Ukraine is sovereign. There will be a hot war again, unless Russia in its current guise is destroyed, or unless Russia manages to destroy Ukrainian sovereignty through political means, preying on the societal rifts and traumas that undoubtedly plague any country after three years of brutal full-scale war suspended in an unfair and inconclusive manner.
However, even if an unfair deal is enforced and Ukraine, through the cessation of military aid from the US and European uselessness, is forced to accept the terms, it will not mean Ukraine has lost. Evidently, it won’t have won, but whether is loses will depend on whether it keeps its political sovereignty. Russia understands that it does not necessarily need to achieve a clear military victory to weaken Ukraine’s sovereignty. If Moscow can force an agreement that cements its territorial gains and limits Ukraine’s ability to defend itself in the future, it will have achieved some of its strategic objectives but not its ultimate goal. It will then use economic leverage, propaganda, and internal divisions to weaken Ukraine from within. The battle for sovereignty does not end with the signing of a deal; it continues in the political struggles that follow.
The reality is that Ukraine’s political sovereignty is still in its own hands, but that does not mean it is secure. The country is exhausted, its population traumatised beyond anything most Europeans can comprehend. Russia is counting on this exhaustion, hoping that over time, it will turn Ukrainians against each other, buy them off, together with the West make them cynical about the point of hoping or believing in anything. Whether it succeeds in doing so will determine whether Ukraine’s sovereignty is sustained or eroded. If Ukraine has to accept an unfair deal, the country will have to decide whether to continue to fight for its sovereignty in other ways, by continuing its defence industry, by preserving its democractic identity, by maintaining its unity, and by working to improve and strengthen the country against its maniacal neighbour. It will have to try as a society to turn its rage against Russia and against the West - both fully justified - into self-righteous anger that will never let anyone do this to Ukraine again, most likely including by developing nuclear weapons. There will be a role for every foreigner who supports Ukraine here too, to contribute to this and to not allow the anger at the unfairness to overwhelm them/us.
Europe’s Strategic Failure
If Europe had treated Russia’s war on Ukraine as an existential threat, it had many options at its disposal. The continent has much more wealth than Russia, a larger population than the United States, and hundreds of advanced fighter jets, modern defence systems, and the industrial capacity to ramp up military production. Yet, it has failed to defend Ukraine in any meaningful military capacity without the U.S.
There are still solutions now, beyond the ignoble option of ‘keeping’ a shameful ersatz ‘peace’ that I expect Russian soldiers to undermine at every turn (although I think PM Starmer’s statement of UK readiness to send peacekeepers was admirable in its determination to provide some leadership). Willing European nations could, from bases in Poland and Romania, set up an integrated air protection zone over Ukrainian airspace, where European aircraft would intercept Russian missile and drone attacks. This would reduce pressure on Ukraine’s air defences, allow Ukrainian pilots to focus on frontline combat, and demonstrate that Europe was capable of taking responsibility for its own security. But Europe will let this idea die most likely, just as it did to other legally and strategically sound air defence plans, despite having the resources to implement it. Many will say it isn’t feasible without US support (it is, in certain guises) but ironically the best way to ensure US security support is to demonstrate willingness to do something for our own continent’s security.
Rich European nations could also redirect funding towards mass Ukrainian weapons production. The Danish model, which funds Ukraine to manufacture its own arms, has proven highly effective. Ukrainian drones and artillery cost a fraction of their Western counterparts, yet most countries have been slow to embrace this approach. Instead, most European nations are more concerned with their own national defence industries and continue to focus on slow, bureaucratic arms deliveries rather than scaling up Ukraine’s war economy to match the demands of the war.
Finally, Joe Biden may not have wanted Russia to lose, but it isn’t clear why European countries wouldn’t desire the defeat of Putin. Why don’t European countries try to destabilise Russian society rather than merely reacting to Russian actions, ‘defending’ against disinformation, or promoting ‘democratic values’ among dissident communities who are already democratic anyway? Russia is a very sick society with deep social cleavages, if our intelligence agencies are worth their budgets, they should be able to do something with those ailments. Some will say, “Oh, but that isn’t who we are.” But the uncomfortable truth is that sovereignty is not defined by moral ideals but by the ability to defend one’s interests. And Europe no longer decides the rules of the game. The world is operating in a harsher paradigm—one where might equals right, and where sovereignty is not a theoretical concept but the ability to enforce one’s will. Europe can choose not to play by those rules, but the game will continue regardless.
Ukraine still has agency. Even if an unjust settlement is imposed, Ukraine will decide how to respond to any imposed peace, whether to resist, and how to rebuild. Europe, meanwhile, has already surrendered its agency. It refuses to defend itself without U.S. leadership, refuses to acknowledge its own capacities and responsibilities, and thus renounces its right to a senior role in shaping global security. Amputated and traumatised, Ukraine will still have every chance to preserve its sovereignty. Whether Europe will recover its own seems less promising.