The U.S. is merging, while Europe is mobilizing: insights from the third anniversary of the war.

On the third anniversary of the infamous Putin's "special military operation," a nearly complete delegation of the European Commission arrived in the Ukrainian capital, led by Ursula von der Leyen and the President of the European Council, António Costa. Alongside them, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, as well as leaders from several Baltic and Northern European countries, disembarked one after another at the railway station in Kyiv. Meanwhile, some European politicians, including the presidents of neighboring Moldova, Sandu, and Poland, Duda, participated in the meeting in an online format.

Directly before the meeting, the leadership of the European Union made it clear that they do not intend to abandon their previous course of supporting the war-torn Ukraine, despite a radical shift in U.S. policy in the past month and Trump's overt refusal to support President Zelensky. According to EU Commissioner for Defense Andrius Kubilius, in addition to expressing solidarity, a primary goal of the meeting in Kyiv was to provide a new aid package for Ukraine.

However, more specific statements were made after the European delegation arrived in Kyiv and moved to the "Support Ukraine" forum meeting.

“The freedom and sovereignty of Ukraine serve the interests of not only Europe but the entire world. This is significant not just for Europe, but for Asia, Africa, and both sides of the Atlantic,” stated European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, simultaneously announcing a new tranche of European aid to Kyiv amounting to €3.5 billion, which will arrive in March.

From her remarks, it was clear that EU countries have provided Ukraine with aid amounting to €134 billion to date—“more than anyone else.” It is worth recalling that the old-new U.S. President Donald Trump claims that Washington has been the largest sponsor of Kyiv over the past three years, not Brussels. Specifically, according to the current occupant of the Oval Office, U.S. aid to Ukraine during this period has reached $350 billion. This arithmetic, which is crucial to emphasize, is not documented and contrasts with calculations from relevant global institutions, which suggest that U.S. contributions do not exceed $100 billion, part of which has remained directly in the United States.

The new security concept for Ukraine, unveiled yesterday in Kyiv by European allies, includes not only a financial-military track but also foresees the creation of a “resilient, secure, and competitive energy system” for Ukraine. “By the end of next year, we will fully integrate the Ukrainian and Moldovan electricity markets into our energy market,” emphasized EC President von der Leyen, making it clear that Europe does not intend to leave Ukraine's economy at the mercy of Trump's administration.

Overall, the statements made on February 24 at the "Support Ukraine" summit, which contrast with initiatives from the White House, echoed similar remarks made the same day in Brussels at a meeting of EU foreign ministers.

“We are proposing new defense initiatives to ensure Ukraine receives ammunition in the short term,” announced European diplomacy chief, Kaia Kallas, who attended the meeting where the 16th EU sanctions package against Russia was adopted. The former Estonian Prime Minister confirmed that new military initiatives of the EU will be “discussed at an emergency summit of EU leaders on March 6.” Notably, another event on Monday, demonstrating a sharp increase in activity from European allies in response to Trump's dealings with Putin's puppets in Riyadh, was a meeting of defense ministers from over ten European countries initiated by France and Estonia to discuss enhancing support for Kyiv. “To strengthen Ukraine's positions and increase pressure on Russia, Estonia is sending ten thousand artillery shells to Ukrainian fighters. At the first opportunity, we will add products from our defense industry worth over 100 million euros,” wrote Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal on his social media page. He added that official Tallinn will also provide the Armed Forces of Ukraine with 750,000 food rations.

As Politico notes, the essence of the EU countries' diplomatic hyperactivity, occurring in emergency mode, is aimed at developing a “dual strategy” to save “what is left of the alliance with the U.S. while simultaneously strengthening support for Ukraine.”

“We must understand that Trump may make radically hostile decisions if he feels insulted,” the newspaper quoted one European diplomat. According to Politico, EU member states are extremely concerned that Washington might decide to withdraw American troops from the region. “We need to develop a security plan for Europe. But we cannot do this simultaneously with pulling out around 100,000 American soldiers from Europe. That’s why we can’t break away from Trump,” argued the publication's source.

“Today, we must clearly understand that, at least during Trump's presidency, we are inevitably losing the U.S. as Ukraine's main strategic partner, including in the military-political confrontation with Russia. However, this process should be prolonged over time and its negative consequences minimized. At the same time, we need to think about forming a new security strategy. At the moment, it is evident that our main strategic partners for the future will be European countries. We share common challenges (the new foreign and security policy of the U.S. under Trump) and problems (Russian aggression), but for us, they are more pronounced and dangerous. However, we will need to seek additional safeguards and counter-levers to reduce threats from Russia and further turbulent fluctuations in the international political situation, including from the U.S. under Trump's presidency,” models the situation political scientist Volodymyr Fesenko.

In turn, political scientist Taras Zahorodniy emphasizes: “Our task now is to ‘help’ Europe find even more. Plus, hint that Ukraine can be given €20 billion, and our defense industry produces modern weapons very cheaply (including missiles). Then Europe will be more independent, and we can pressure the U.S. and negotiate discounts on their weapons. But for this, we need to open exports for our defense industry, ensure its confidentiality, insurance of military risks, long-term contracts, and accessible credit. And we should start implementing the ‘nightmare’ of the U.S.—creating a unified European army based on the Ukrainian one. Then we will see who will set ultimatums to whom. And Ukrainians must stop anti-American hysteria on social media. Trump is who he is—we didn’t choose him. Without the U.S., it will be very hard for Ukraine. They should be a tool for achieving our goals—victory in the war. Other emotions should not interest us at all. Better to ask our government: where is the expansion of domestic weapons production? This is our subjectivity and the key to our victory because strong allies help.”

Meanwhile, on Monday, February 24, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution from the U.S. on the third anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It should be noted that this document does not contain a direct condemnation of Putin's aggression. Ninety-three UN member states voted “Yes” to the American resolution “Path to Peace,” while eight voted against it, and 73 (including Ukraine) abstained. The UN General Assembly simultaneously rejected a Russian amendment “on the need to eliminate the root causes of the Ukrainian crisis”: 71 countries voted against it, while only 31 supported it. The short U.S. resolution expresses sorrow over the “tragic loss of life during the Russian-Ukrainian conflict” and calls for “the swift cessation of the conflict and the establishment of a strong peace.”

At the same time, the UN General Assembly approved the Ukrainian-European resolution with the same 93 votes, which contained a clear and unequivocal condemnation of Russian aggression. It is quite revealing that the U.S. voted “against.” A similar position was demonstrated by Russia, Belarus, Hungary, Israel (symbolically and regrettably), North Korea, the Central African Republic, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Mali, Sudan, Niger, Nicaragua, Palau, and the Marshall Islands. In general, as we can see, the U.S. ended up with “excellent” allies. As they say, no comments. It should be noted that the EU and official Kyiv's draft resolution refers to the “full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation into Ukraine” and contains a demand for Russia to “immediately, fully, and unconditionally withdraw all its armed forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders.”

Commenting on this vote, the head of the Institute of World Politics, Viktor Shlynchak, notes: “The United States demanded through diplomatic channels to withdraw our draft from consideration. What can I say? Yes, indeed, the world is not as it was three years ago. And in general, I will say, perhaps an unpopular thesis: UN General Assembly meetings are long ago like Eurovision. A show of outdated formats that have long lost meaning and weight. Today we rejoice that we won some bout, some resolution. Nice. We rubbed America's nose in it! Well done! We really lack something emotionally uplifting right now. And tomorrow we will again communicate with the U.S. and Israel, the day after tomorrow we will again clash with those who were ‘for’ today—and launch a new show. Well, will the UN ever be disbanded? Because this organization has long been worth zero. If it were effective, there would be no wars and conflicts in the world. The OSCE, by the way, also needs a similar overhaul.”

However, some experts view the scandalous UN vote from a different perspective. For instance, political scientist Petr Oleshchuk emphasizes: “Someone may say that the UN General Assembly resolution means nothing. Indeed, no one will implement it, but the question is