Click to see the full-size image
Ursula von der Leyen delusionally describes Ukraine’s supposed reforms as “impressive”
Written by Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher
Brussels has formalized further sanctions against Russia and promised Kiev new military aid worth €3.5 billion. The desire to admit Ukraine into the European Union before 2030 has been reaffirmed, but this short time period is accelerated due to access to rare minerals, which the United States is also seeking.
The so-called International Summit on the Support of Ukraine concluded on February 24, the third anniversary of the start of Russia’s special military operation, and was attended by almost all of the EU’s top leadership: the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen; the President of the European Council, António Costa; the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola; and almost all members of the College of Commissioners.
Among the few EU leaders, mostly leaders from the Baltic and Nordic countries, the Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, and the Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, stood out. The Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, and the Icelandic President, Halla Tómasdóttir, comprised the international representation, while the US and the Global South were absent.
Von der Leyen announced the delivery of €3.5 billion in military aid to Kiev. Almost in parallel, in Brussels, the head of European diplomacy, Kaja Kallas, made official the sixteenth package of sanctions against Russia during a meeting with EU foreign ministers.
“We will continue to support Ukraine for as long as necessary,” said Pedro Sánchez, announcing a new shipment of military aid by the Spanish government to Ukraine in 2025, which amounts to €1 billion and is part of the bilateral agreement on security and defense signed in May 2024, with a validity of 10 years. Through this mechanism, Madrid has already delivered €1.12 billion.
The imposition of new sanctions and delivery of weapons comes after the EU demanded to be on an equal footing with the US and Russia at the negotiating table to end the war in Ukraine, but European leaders have not considered how their actions are dialectically opposed to the goals of US President Donald Trump. More weapons, sanctions, and disagreements with Trump will not allow Brussels to gain a place on the real negotiation table.
European leaders in Kiev have expressed their desire to see Ukraine join the EU as a member state in 2030. Although the admission process has no fixed date, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda has called for it to be accelerated once the country has adopted the required reforms in various areas.
Ursula von der Leyen described Ukraine’s supposed progress in such reforms as “impressive.” Although Brussels imposes a strict regulatory, fiscal, legal, political, and economic framework to gain EU membership, it is recalled that Ukraine has banned several political parties, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), and several media outlets, in addition to being one of the most corrupt countries in the world.
In fact, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky admitted in a recent interview that he was unaware of the whereabouts of billions of euros given to Kiev by Western countries.
The EU’s rush to include Ukraine is explained by European interest in accessing Ukraine’s rare minerals at a time when Trump is working hard to gain access to them. The issue of rare minerals is also crucial for the negotiations, especially as it will lead to Ukraine being further subjugated by Washington’s decision to marginalize its place in the talks for the moment. Rare minerals operate as a factor of exclusion of the EU at that table, given that it is also interested in them.
Trump has a more commercial than militaristic vision, which is why his attempts to prevent the EU from accessing them are part of his wider trade war agenda. By being left out of the negotiations, the EU is also left out of the distribution of rare minerals in Ukraine.
The US president also wants to recoup the $174 billion the Biden administration wasted on Ukraine with the country’s rare minerals. Given the inaccessibility and difficulty of raising investments in a territory that has become a battlefield, exploiting the resources is impossible, which is why Trump is desperate to end the war quickly. Also noteworthy is the fact that these are mineral resources the US does not have on its territory.
Brussels’ protests over its exclusion from the Riyadh talks between US and Russian delegations are inversely proportional to the good spirits displayed during the so-called Peace Summit held in June 2024 in Switzerland to explore avenues for peace, where Russia was excluded.
Before Trump, the EU had been denying initiatives by countries such as China, Turkey, South Africa, and Brazil and their efforts to support peace proposals. Amid the frictions among countries in the collective West, initiatives such as the establishment in September 2024 of the Group of Friends for Peace on the Ukraine Crisis were created at the request of China and Brazil, together with several countries in the Global South.
The EU has proven beyond doubt that it is not a project for peace but a project for prolonging war in Europe. Given that the EU does not have the power to support Ukraine’s goals of taking back all territory lost to Russia, it will find itself once again out of the real negotiations taking place between Trump and Putin.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
new declassified cia memo presents blueprint for syrian regime collapse
by brad hoff | feb 14, 2017
a newly declassified cia document explored multiple scenarios of syrian regime collapse at a time when hafez al-assad’s government was embroiled in a covert “dirty war” with israel and the west, and in the midst of a diplomatic crisis which marked an unprecedented level of isolation for syria.
the 24-page formerly classified memo entitled syria: scenarios of dramatic political change was produced in july 1986, and had high level distribution within the reagan administration and to agency directors, including presidential advisers, the national security council, and the us ambassador to syria. the memo appears in the cia’s latest crest release (cia records search tool) of over 900,000 recently declassified documents.
a “severely restricted
report
the memo’s cover letter, drafted by the cia’s director of global issues (the report itself was prepared by the division’s foreign subversion and instability center), introduces the purpose of presenting “a number of possible scenarios that could lead to the ouster of president assad or other dramatic change in syria.”
it further curiously warns that, “because the analysis out of context is susceptible to misunderstanding, external distribution has been severely restricted.” the report’s narrowed distribution list (sent to specific named national security heads, not entire agencies) indicates that it was considered at the highest levels of the reagan administration.
the coming sectarian war for syria
the intelligence report’s contents contain some striking passages which seem remarkably consistent with events as they unfolded decades later at the start of the syrian war in 2011:
although we judge that fear of reprisals and organizational problems make a second sunni challenge unlikely, an excessive government reaction to minor outbreaks of sunni dissidence might trigger large-scale unrest. in most instances the regime would have the resources to crush a sunni opposition movement, but we believe widespread violence among the populace could stimulate large numbers of sunni officers and conscripts to desert or munity, setting the stage for civil war. [pg.2]
the “second sunni challenge” is a reference to the syrian government’s prior long running war against a muslim brotherhood insurgency which culminated in the 1982 hama massacre. while downplaying the nationalist and pluralistic composition of the ruling ba’ath party, the report envisions a renewal and exploitation of sectarian fault lines pitting syria’s sunni population against its alawite leadership:
‘while downplaying the nationalist and -pluralistic – composition of the ruling ba’ath party’. yes, ba’ath was socialist and pluralistic, a consensus striving ideology. the garbage apes that are running around syria now couldn’t even conceive in their drug addled dreams what pluralism is about.
sunnis make up 60 percent of the syrian officer corps but are concentrated in junior officer ranks; enlisted men are predominantly sunni conscripts. we believe that a renewal of communal violence between alawis and sunnis could inspire sunnis in the military to turn against the regime. [pg.12]
regime change and the muslim brotherhood
the possibility of the muslim
regime change and the muslim brotherhood
the possibility of the muslim brotherhood spearheading another future armed insurgency leading to regime change is given extensive focus. while the document’s tone suggests this as a long term future scenario (especially considering the brotherhood suffered overwhelming defeat and went completely underground in syria by the mid-1980’s), it is considered one of the top three “most likely”
regime change and the muslim brotherhood
the possibility of the muslim brotherhood spearheading another future armed insurgency leading to regime change is given extensive focus. while the document’s tone suggests this as a long term future scenario (especially considering the brotherhood suffered overwhelming defeat and went completely underground in
syria by the mid-1980’s), it is considered one of the top three “most likely” drivers of regime change (the other scenarios include “succession power struggle” and “military reverses spark a coup”).the potential for revival of the muslim brotherhood’s “militant faction” is introduced in the following:
although the muslim brotherhood’s suppression drastically reduced armed dissidence, we judge a significant potential still exists for another sunni opposition movement. in part the brotherhood’s role was to exploit and orchestrate opposition activity by other organized groups…
these groups still exist, and under proper leadership they could coalesce into a large movement… …young professionals who formed the base of support for the militant faction of the muslim brotherhood; and remnants of the brotherhood itself who could become leaders in a new sunni opposition movement the brotherhood’s role is seen as escalating the potential for initially small sunni protest movements to morph into violent sectarian civil war:
sunni dissidence has been minimal since assad crushed the muslim brotherhood in the early 1980s, but deep-seated tensions remain–keeping alive the potential for minor incidents to grow into major flareups of communal violence… excessive government force in quelling such disturbances might be seen by sunnis as evidence of a government vendetta against all sunnis, precipitating even larger protests by other sunni groups
mistaking the new protests as a resurgence of the muslim brotherhood, the government would step up its use of force and launch violent attacks on a broad spectrum of sunni community leaders as well as on those engaged in protests. regime efforts to restore order would founder if government violence against protestors inspired broad-based communal violence between alawis and sunnis.
the cia report describes the final phase of an evolving sectarian war which witnesses the influx of fighters and weapons from neighboring countries. consistent with a 1983 secret report that called for a us covert operation to utilize then us-allied iraq as a base of attack on syria, the 1986 analysis says, “iraq might supply them with sufficient weapons to launch a civil war”:
a general campaign of alawi violence against sunnis might push even moderate sunnis to join the opposition. remnants of the muslim brotherhood–some returning from exile in iraq–could provide a core of leadership for the movement. although the regime has the resources to crush such a venture, we believe brutal attacks on sunni civilians might prompt large numbers of sunni officers and conscripts to desert or stage mutinies in support of dissidents, and iraq might supply them with sufficient
a sunni regime serving western economic interests
while the document is primarily a theoretical exploration projecting scenarios of syrian regime weakening and collapse (its purpose is analysis and not necessarily policy), the authors admit of its “purposefully provocative” nature (see preface) and closes with a list desired outcomes. one provocative outcome describes a pliant “sunni regime” serving us economic interests:
in our view, us interests would be best served by a sunni regime controlled by business-oriented moderates. business moderates would see a strong need for western aid and investment to build syria’s private economy, thus opening the way for stronger ties to western governments. [pg. 24]
ironically, the syrian government would accuse the united states and its allies of covert subversion within syria after a string of domestic bombings created diplomatic tensions during the mid-1980’s.
dirty tricks and diplomacy in the 1980’s
according to patrick seale’s landmark book, asad of syria: the struggle for the middle east, 1986 was a year that marked syria’s greatest isolation among world powers as multiple diplomatic crises and terror events put syria more and more out in the cold.
the year included “the hindawi affair”—a syrian intelligence sponsored attempt to hijack and bomb an el al flight to tel aviv—and may or may not have involved nezar hindawi working as a double agent on behalf of israel. the foiled plot brought down international condemnation on syria and lives on as one of the more famous and bizarre terror conspiracies in history. not only were syria and israel
not only were syria and israel once again generally on the brink of war in 1986, but a string of “dirty tricks” tactics were being utilized by syria and its regional enemies to shape diplomatic outcomes primarily in lebanon and jordan.
in march and april of 1986 (months prior to the distribution of the cia memo), a string of still largely unexplained car bombs rocked damascus and at least 5 towns throughout syria, leaving over 200 civilians dead in the most significant wave of attacks since the earlier ’79-’82 war with the muslim brotherhood (also see bbc news recount the
patrick seale’s book speculates of the bombings that, “it may not have been unconnected that in late 1985 the nsc’s colonel oliver north and amiram nir, peres’s counter-terrorism expert, set up a dirty tricks outfit to strike back at the alleged sponsors of middle east terrorism.”*
consistency with future wikileaks files
the casual reader of syria: scenarios of dramatic political change will immediately recognize a strategic thinking on syria that looks much the same as what is revealed in national security memos produced decades later in the run up to the current war in syria.
when us cables or intelligence papers talk regime change in syria they usually strategize in terms of exploiting sectarian fault lines.