From Genscher to Baerbock: Europe's fatal descent into irrelevance. The war could soon be over – not because Europe wants it, but because Trump and Putin decide so. Defense stocks under pressure

Telopolis (German Onlie-Portal): Europe, which presented itself as the defender of Western values and Ukrainian sovereignty, has driven Ukraine into a war whose price will be measured in blood and destruction. While European politicians talk of solidarity and perseverance, Trump and Putin are negotiating an end to the conflict over the heads of all those involved. Europe is no longer a serious player, but at best a disruptive factor complicating the real negotiations between the major powers. The Handelsblatt reports on “Arms stocks under pressure” and provocatively asks: “Is now the time to get in?” The implicit assumption: The war could soon be over – not because Europe wants it, but because Trump and Putin decide so. Europe as a bit player: How the EU squandered its global political significance. Thirty-five years after reunification, Germany must face a harsh reality check. What has become of the country that once served as a bridge builder between East and West? That secured its place in the world order through clever diplomacy and economic strength? The answer is sobering: Germany has traded its foreign policy expertise for moral self-righteousness. Instead of defining and asserting its interests, it revels in the role of moral admonisher. Instead of pursuing realpolitik, it loses itself in ideological trench warfare. The result is a foreign policy that generates neither respect nor influence. The transformation from an interest-driven to a values-based foreign policy may generate applause at home, but in foreign policy it leads to irrelevance. While Germany philosophizes about human rights and exporting democracy, other powers are dividing the world among themselves. Europe must recognize that security is not guaranteed by confrontation with nuclear powers, but by clever diplomacy. A turnaround is theoretically possible, but unlikely in practice.

Europe as a bit player: How

the EU squandered its global political significance. The Alaska debacle and the price of moral foreign policy. A Telepolis editorial.

While Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin negotiate the future of Europe in Alaska, the full extent of Europe's insignificance in world politics is revealed. What is happening in Alaska is more than a diplomatic defeat – it is the culmination of decades of self-marginalization that has reduced Europe to a spectator of its own destiny.

The analysis of the summit by leading German and European media reads like a record of powerlessness. Deutschlandfunk speaks of an “absolute bankruptcy for Europe” and states that Europeans are “not players at the negotiating table” and remain “dependent on the US for security policy.”

The international press, Deutschlandfunk continues, describes the summit as “much ado about nothing” – with the ‘nothing’ applying above all to Europe, which was not even consulted.

The Frankfurter Rundschau sums it up: Europe has “no place at the negotiating table.” The Chinese newspaper HUANQIU SHIBAO is even clearer, diagnosing Europe's “helplessness and dependence on the US and Russia” and stating that Europe has “no decisive influence in international politics and in the Ukraine conflict.”

Europe as a supplicant

The Europeans' attempts to exert influence on the negotiations are downright tragic. As reported by the Süddeutsche Zeitung, “European governments are counting on a joint approach to get Trump to listen.” In a hastily arranged video conference with Trump and Zelensky, according to SRF, “five basic conditions for a peace solution were presented: a ceasefire, no acceptance of Russian territorial gains, security guarantees for Ukraine” and other points.

But the reaction from Moscow is devastating. SWR reports: “In Russia, the media has commented condescendingly on the virtual pre-summit between the Europeans and Donald Trump. There has even been talk of ‘sabotage’: the Merz initiative and the interference of the Europeans would jeopardize the summit in Alaska.”

Der Merkur quotes European warnings against “going it alone” and describes how “the talks should influence Trump's position at the summit with the Russian president in Alaska.” But the reality shows that Europe has been reduced to the role of a powerless admonisher, a warning voice without weight.

The Arctic agenda: The true price of the summit

The choice of Alaska as the venue for the negotiations is anything but symbolic—it is programmatic. Alaska belonged to Russia until 1867 and was sold to the US for $7.2 million. “This deal is repeatedly lamented by Russian hardliners as a strategic mistake by the Tsarist Empire,” the article states. Circles close to the Kremlin, including Dmitry Medvedev, have even raised the possibility of “returning Alaska” in recent years.

ZDF heute explains the strategic dimension: “Climate-induced ice melt is opening up new trade routes and enormous reserves of raw materials, including rare earths, oil, and natural gas.” The publication goes on to say that “Russia, the US, China, and Canada are competing intensively for control of the new sea routes and energy reserves.” According to ZDF, NATO experts warn that the Western alliance is “relatively weak” in the Arctic.

The Frankfurter Rundschau reports on Putin's ambitions for a “new world order” that he wants to design with the US, “in which Russia wants to be recognized as an equal global player.” The Handelsblatt analyzes the impact on the markets and speaks of a possible “asymmetrical market reaction” on the oil market. The FAZ examines “what role the Trump-Putin meeting plays for the oil price” and documents already falling crude oil prices and market movements for heating oil, gasoline, and diesel.

Europe without options

The military component of Arctic policy is particularly explosive. ProSieben reports that “Russia is strengthening its military presence and regularly conducting flight maneuvers near Alaska.” NORAD has “recently registered Russian military flights near Alaska as a show of force.” At the same time, according to ZDF, the US has “openly claimed Greenland” and sent “US delegations to military bases in Greenland,” which is causing mistrust among the Danes.

Die Zeit describes the Arctic as a “playground for the major powers,” where both rapprochement between the US and Russia and intensified rivalry “over resources and military presence” are possible. ZDF emphasizes that “access to rare earths, oil, and natural gas deposits in the region is crucial for the tech industry and the energy sector” and that “the US and Russia are investing in icebreakers and technology systems to tap new reserves.”

The long road to irrelevance

This dramatic marginalization of Europe is no accident, but the result of decades of misguided development. It began with Peter Struck's fatal thesis that Germany's security would be defended in the Hindu Kush—a statement that exemplifies the overextension and moralization of German foreign policy. What began in Afghanistan as a naive projection of Western values onto foreign cultures continued in Annalena Baerbock's policy toward Ukraine.

The generation of Genscherists, those diplomats who brought the Cold War to a favorable end for the West through skillful interest politics and patient negotiations, now see their life's work in ruins. The principle of balancing interests, which Hans-Dietrich Genscher mastered so well, has been replaced by a policy of moral imperatives that may appease one's conscience but lacks any real political clout.

Putin speaks, Trump nods, Europe remains silent

The dynamics of the summit itself are revealing. As reported by WDR and Tagesschau, “Putin was allowed to speak first at the press conference,” while Trump gave in and “Europe is not sitting at the table.” Tagesschau analyzes that “at best, the Europeans make demands after the fact and are put off, but structurally they have no influence on the outcome of the negotiations because they are not involved.”

WDR quotes a political scientist with the damning assessment that “the EU is simply watching” and “no pressure is being exerted on the negotiations in the international public arena.” Putin can “present his position without Europe contradicting him.”

These observations are more than protocol details—they are symptoms of a fundamental shift in power. Europe, once a proud player on the world stage, has become a silent observer that no longer even has the strength to protest.

Europe's moral debacle

The bitter irony of the current situation can hardly be overestimated. Europe, which presented itself as the defender of Western values and Ukrainian sovereignty, has driven Ukraine into a war whose price is being measured in blood and destruction. While European politicians talk of solidarity and perseverance, Trump and Putin are negotiating an end to the conflict over the heads of all those involved.

The Süddeutsche Zeitung reports on Europe's “major diplomatic offensive,” but at the same time warns that “the key decisions on security and peace could, in case of doubt, be made without European involvement.” Chancellor Merz is quoted as saying that “there must be no peace that rewards Russia's aggressive actions” – a demand that, given the real balance of power, sounds like whistling in the dark.

The economic dimension

The financial markets, often a sensitive seismograph of geopolitical shifts, have long since drawn their conclusions. The Handelsblatt reports on “defense stocks under pressure” and provocatively asks: “Is now the time to get in?” The implicit assumption: the war could soon be over – not because Europe wants it, but because Trump and Putin decide so.

The FAZ analyzes the impact on the energy market in detail. “Falling crude oil prices” and “market movements in heating oil, gasoline, and diesel” are not just economic indicators—they are the financial quantification of European irrelevance. The markets are already pricing in what politicians do not yet want to admit: Europe no longer plays a role.

German foreign policy after 1989: A balance sheet of failure

Thirty-five years after reunification, Germany must face a harsh assessment. What has become of the country that once was considered a bridge builder between East and West? That secured its place in the world order through clever diplomacy and economic strength?

The answer is sobering: Germany has traded its foreign policy expertise for moral self-righteousness. Instead of defining and asserting its interests, it revels in the role of moral admonisher. Instead of pursuing realpolitik, it loses itself in ideological trench warfare. The result is a foreign policy that generates neither respect nor influence.

The transformation from an interest-driven to a values-based foreign policy may generate applause domestically, but in foreign policy it leads to irrelevance. While Germany philosophizes about human rights and exporting democracy, other powers are dividing the world among themselves.

The price of hubris

Europe is paying a high price for its moral superiority. The desperate attempts to exert influence via video conference, the helpless appeals to Trump, the ignored warnings against going it alone—all these are symptoms of self-inflicted marginalization.

Deutschlandfunk sums it up when it speaks of a “low point in diplomacy” and quotes experts who are “stunned” by the outcome of the summit. But the stunned reaction should not be directed at Trump or Putin, but at Europe's own policies, which have maneuvered it into this hopeless situation.

The uncomfortable truth: Europe fits the definition of a vassal

What remains after Alaska? A Europe that fits the classic definition of a vassal: dependent, without any power of its own, at the mercy of the real power brokers. A Europe that pays – in the form of economic sanctions, military aid, refugee resettlement – but has no say in the decisions. A Europe that bears the consequences of foreign decisions without being able to influence them.

The Russian media, which according to SWR speak of “sabotage” when Europe tries to exert influence, have grasped the reality more accurately than many Western commentators: Europe is no longer a serious player, but at best a disruptive factor that complicates the real negotiations between the major powers.

Radical reversal or further marginalization

A turnaround is theoretically possible, but practically unlikely. It would require a radical departure from previous policy: away from moral self-aggrandizement and toward sober interest politics. Away from ideological crusades and toward pragmatic compromise. Away from the illusion of moral superiority and toward recognition of real power relations.

Europe would have to recognize that security is not guaranteed by confrontation with nuclear powers, but by clever diplomacy. It would have to understand that economic strength alone does not generate political power if it is not combined with strategic thinking and decisive action.

The alternative is to continue on the current course: further marginalization, further irrelevance, further dependence. A Europe that stands by and watches as others decide its future. A Europe that has driven Ukraine into a hopeless war and now has to stand by helplessly as its fate is negotiated without European involvement.

The end of illusions

The meeting in Alaska marks the end of European illusions. The idea that moral superiority can be used to exert influence in world politics has failed. The hope that the US would automatically represent European interests has proven naive. The assumption that sanctions and isolation could bring Russia to its knees has been disproved by reality.

What remains is the sober realization that Europe has relegated itself to the role of a bit player. Through an amateurish, ideologically overloaded foreign policy, it has squandered its ability to act. Ukraine is paying the highest price in blood, Europe in influence and relevance.

The question is no longer whether Europe plays a role in world politics—Alaska has answered that question. The question is whether Europe will muster the courage to radically change course or finally resign itself to the role of vassal. The time for decisions is running out—while in Alaska, facts are already being created about which Europe is not even informed, let alone consulted.

This is the bitter reality of 2025: Europe, once the center of world politics, has become a spectator of its own marginalization. The responsibility for this lies not with Trump or Putin, but with European politicians who have placed morality above interests, ideology above pragmatism, and wishful thinking above realism. The outcome of this policy is now being negotiated by others—in Alaska, without Europe.

deepl translation

Von Genscher zu Baerbock: Europas fataler Abstieg in die Irrelevanz