Speaking to the Strategic Council of Foreign Relations, Morteza Makki pointed out the concern and warnings of European officials regarding the end of Europe’s arms reserves for military aid to Ukraine, and at the same time the emphasis of some officials of these countries on the necessity of continuing the war, and stated that Russia’s attack on Ukraine eliminated the gap and disagreement between Europe and the US on how to deal with Moscow. The Germans and the French believed that they should be able to influence its power as a threat to Europe from within with strong economic relations with Russia.

He stated that the US believed more in containing Russia within its own borders, and reminded that in the end, it was America’s policy that provoked Russia to attack Ukraine, and the Europeans were in a situation where they had no choice but to accompany and align with the US in helping Ukraine to confront Russia. This situation is very serious for Europe.

These European issues expert said that “now that more than 9 months have passed since the war, the Europeans are very interested in ending this war as soon as possible. The repeated warnings that our military reserves are exhausted and we are unable to send more aid to Ukraine; these are signs that they are very interested in ending the Russian war at this point or by creating a ceasefire to create conditions for dialogue and negotiation with Russia. Even if the Russians are not willing to withdraw from Ukraine, this is the desire of the heart of the Europeans.

At the same time, Makki added that although Europe has such a desire, the reality on the ground is something else; In any case, the US has obtained a golden opportunity to contain and weaken Russia and is not willing to lose this position in any way. Joe Biden’s proposal to negotiate with Russia on the condition of withdrawing from Ukraine was a clear message to the Europeans that without the withdrawal of the Russians, there is no other way to negotiate and talk with the Russians.

Referring to the recent statements of the US Secretary of State that “the war situation in Ukraine will end with diplomacy and negotiation and we must witness a just and lasting peace”, he continued: “During the visit of the French President to the US, the White House will continue to support this position. He emphasized and practically declared that it is not possible to implement Macron’s and Schultz’s views on trying to negotiate with Putin in the current situation.

This analyst of European issues said that the recent words of Joseph Borrell, the head of the European Union’s foreign policy, and the positions that European officials have acknowledged that we are continuing our talks with Putin, or Macron’s emphasis on the necessity of talks with the Russian president, show that they are seeking to manage the situation through talks; But this position of the Russians, who do not accept the condition of accepting withdrawal from Ukraine to start the talks, does not create a clear vision of the status of this crisis and will continue with the ambiguous conditions of this war.

Referring to France’s emphasis on the necessity of providing guarantees to Russia in the future security architecture of Europe, Mackey noted that such views were also heard from France before the Ukraine war, but this approach has been isolated in the current situation. Americans put more emphasis on the development of NATO to contain Russia. During the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, it was Sarkozy who tried to manage the crisis and prevent it from continuing by going back and forth to Tbilisi and Moscow, and he succeeded to some extent.

He continued that but the Americans are not willing to take such an approach to the Ukraine crisis. In 2008, Merkel and Sarkozy emphasized that the issue of accepting Ukraine and Georgia for membership in NATO should be postponed until an unknown future, and this action was taken, but in practice this difference of views continued, and in the end, the US became the major supplier of the budget. NATO still insists on its development even on the former Soviet republics.

Referring to the statements of the German chancellor that “we want to recognize Russia as a major European country and economic cooperation with it after the end of the war in Ukraine”, this expert on European affairs said that Olaf Schultz is trying to encourage Russia with these promises to enter into dialogue and withdrawal from Ukraine and give hope that the conditions of Russia and Europe can return to a large extent before the attack on Ukraine; But the field scene in Ukraine and the type of confrontation between the US and Russia do not create such a perspective.

Mackey reminded that Europeans have very low maneuvering power. Before Russia’s attack on Ukraine, they thought they could achieve their goals through soft power in attracting, managing and restraining Russia. Merkel’s statements regarding creating a context for dialogue in the framework of Minsk with the aim of buying time in relations with Russia are also in this context. They never said that Russia is our strategic partner and emphasized that the way to change Russia’s behavior is to expand cooperation.

He added that what the Europeans say about expressing hope for the end of the war and the start of negotiations will be analyzed in the framework of their demands, but it should be seen if they have the ability to achieve this demand! They are highly dependent on the US in terms of military power, and the Ukraine crisis showed the depth and consequences of this dependence.

Makki emphasized that this situation was aggravated by the war in Ukraine, and one of the consequences of the war in Ukraine was to show the depth of Europe’s dependence on the United States, and they are not in a position to take over the policy and management of the crisis in Ukraine, and they have no choice but to coordinate and align with the United States regarding the Ukraine crisis.