“After the scene in the White House between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky on February 28, it may be appropriate to conclude the entire sphere of geopolitics in the West has become pure delirium. There have always been at least two credible accounts of the underlying causes and political responsibilities behind the war in Ukraine. Contrary to the propaganda that has dominated in the West that Vladimir Putin is an imperialist as well as the incarnation of evil, and also contrary to the simplistic and fundamentally absurd explanation of Trump that Ukraine started the war, history reveals that many political personalities had a role in creating the conditions that led to the Russian invasion in February 2022. Just to name a few whose actions and positioning contributed to the growing tension: Bill Clinton, George W Bush (a major role), Victor Yanukovich, Victoria Nuland, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, François Hollande, Angela Merkel, Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan but even Zbigniew Brzezinski, to say nothing of numerous personalities in the media.

The long and the short of it is there has been a long unfolding pattern of chess moves that make it clear that a Manichean reading of the war that assigns responsibility to one side and one side only can only represent a distortion of reality. It was distortion on both sides that played out at the unprecedented dramatic showdown in the Oval Office on February 28, 2025. Just as TV drama it was a delirious performance on both sides.

But what may seem even more delirious is the reaction from Europe of unconditional support for Zelensky and condemnation of Trump. And this is surprising for two reasons. The war has been damaging for Europe and its continuation can only be more damaging, especially as it would seem to imply a more active and direct engagement of Europe in a war that many believe Ukraine could never win. Here are some statements made in the aftermath of the tempestuous meeting in the White House.

• ‘Your dignity honors the bravery of the Ukrainian people. Be strong, be brave, be fearless’ (Ursula von der Leyen). She seems not to have noticed it was totally undignified on both sides.
• ‘The free world needs a new leader’ (Kaja Kallas): this is a call for regime change in the US, a clearly crazy idea coming from any European.
• Referring to the ‘aggressor’ (Russia) and the ‘aggressed,’ Emmanuel Macron said ‘I think we were all right to help Ukraine and sanction Russia three years ago, and to continue to do so. We, that is the United States of America, the Europeans, the Canadians, the Japanese and many others.’ Is the fact that he thinks something enough to justify indefinitely prolonging a war? 
• Friedrich Merz said: ‘How can you stab the president of an invaded country in the back like this? Free Europe will not betray Ukraine!’ The question is rhetorically loaded and plays to the popular notion of victimization in that it supposes that the president of an invaded country must always be right and that criticizing him in any way is a stab in the back.
• Norway’s Jonas Stoere had a much more balanced take when he said: ‘Ukraine still needs the US’s support, and Ukraine’s security and future are also important to the US and to Europe.’
• Canadian foreign minister Melanie Joly said: ‘We think Ukrainians are fighting for their own freedoms, but they’re also fighting for ours.’ Is there any rational way of creating a link between whatever freedom might exist at any time in Ukraine and freedom in Canada?
• Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said: ‘We will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes, because this is the struggle of a democratic nation versus an authoritarian regime led by Vladimir Putin, who clearly has imperialistic designs, not just on Ukraine, but throughout that region.’ As we have explored in previous conversations there is no solid evidence for Putin’s ‘imperialistic designs’; this is an assertion that is never critically examined.

This last remark epitomizes the state of delirium. The reasons cited with the aim of avoiding a negotiated peace are principally emotional and to some extent imaginary. In all cases they are based on the idea that one party is entirely right and the other entirely wrong. 

The particular reason all this amounts to delirium is quite simply that we have a situation in which two absurdities have become the foundation of political thinking today. The first is that whereas both NATO and the European Union were created as instruments specifically designed to ensure peace and continental stability following two world wars initiated inside Europe, those two institutions now seem embarked on a course that excludes diplomacy and insists on waging war until the defeat of the opponent. NATO and Europe are aligned in favor of war and growing instability. The second is the idea of envisaging an exclusively European commitment, without the US, to Ukraine’s war at a moment when both Ukraine and Europe have been weakened to the point of possible irrelevance.

In contrast US Secretary of State Marco Rubio made a statement that all the Western leaders cited above refuse to acknowledge: ‘This is a complex war that has causes behind it that go back a number of years.’ Does it make any sense to deny complexity, especially in matters of war and peace?

So here is my question. Apart from arguments about always defending the aggressed against the aggressor, which is a risky principle to adopt when the balance of power is clearly unfavorable, what explains the motivation of European leaders to commit to a plan that seems suicidal. There is reason to think that the leaders who express this commitment are not just think about Ukraine being a ‘just cause’. No leaders are that naïve. So, what are some credible theories about economic, geopolitical, political or even personal motivations? There is the obvious factor that no leader wants to be seen as radically changing their position just because the US has a new president. But can there be other credible factors?”

Here is ChatGPT’s reply.

“There are several possible motivations—economic, geopolitical, political, and personal—that could explain why European leaders remain so strongly committed to supporting Ukraine, even when the war appears increasingly costly and strategically uncertain for Europe.

1. Geopolitical Factors

• European Security and Strategic Autonomy
  The EU and NATO have long depended on US military power for their security. With Trump signaling potential disengagement, some European leaders may be reinforcing their commitment to Ukraine as a way to justify and accelerate EU military integration and strategic autonomy.
• Fear of Russian Expansion
  Despite debate over whether Putin has ‘imperialistic designs,’ European leaders may genuinely fear that a Ukrainian defeat would embolden Russia to assert influence over former Soviet or Warsaw Pact states. The Baltics and Poland, in particular, perceive this as an existential issue.
• Signaling to Other Adversaries
  A European withdrawal from Ukraine could be interpreted as a sign of weakness, potentially emboldening other geopolitical rivals, including China, to take assertive action in Taiwan or elsewhere.

2. Economic Factors

• Defense Industry Profits
  The war has led to a massive increase in European defense spending. Countries like Germany and France, which have strong arms industries, benefit from this demand.
• Energy Realignment and Economic Adjustments
  Europe has already committed to shifting away from Russian energy. A sudden reversal would be economically difficult and politically humiliating. Instead, European leaders may see the war as a painful but necessary transition to new energy dependencies (e.g., US LNG, Middle Eastern gas, nuclear investments).
• US-EU Economic Dependence
  The US has benefited economically from the war through arms sales and energy exports. European leaders may fear economic repercussions if they break alignment with Washington, especially in trade negotiations and financial markets.

3. Political and Institutional Factors

• EU and NATO Cohesion
  For decades, European leaders have operated under the assumption that unity within NATO and the EU is vital. Any retreat from Ukraine could create fractures within these institutions, with some members (e.g., Poland and the Baltics) feeling betrayed.
• Domestic Political Constraints
  Many European leaders staked their credibility on unwavering support for Ukraine. To suddenly change course could be politically disastrous. For figures like Macron, Scholz, and von der Leyen, reversing their stance might be perceived as an admission of miscalculation or weakness.

4. Personal and Ideological Factors

• Legacy and Historical Judgment
  Leaders often think about how history will judge them. Given the moral framing of this war, no leader wants to be remembered as the one who ‘abandoned Ukraine.’
• Fear of Populism and Internal Instability
  Many European governments are under pressure from nationalist or populist movements that have criticized Ukraine policy. Some leaders might see continued commitment to Ukraine as a way to assert control over their own political narratives.

Conclusion

The European stance likely results from a mix of these factors rather than a singular cause. While emotional rhetoric plays a role in public statements, behind the scenes, leaders are likely thinking about military alliances, economic dependencies, domestic politics, and their own political legacies. The question remains whether their strategy is sustainable, especially if US policy continues to shift under Trump.”

I asked the same question to DeepSeek, which made similar points but with more detail and significantly more nuance. ChatGPT offered 512 words compared to DeepSeek’s 993. Rather than reproduce DeepSeek’s text, I invite readers to compare its conclusion with ChatGPT’s.

DeepSeek’s Conclusion

“The motivations behind European leaders’ support for Ukraine are not monolithic; they are shaped by a combination of strategic, economic, political, and personal factors. While the principle of defending the ‘aggressed’ against the ‘aggressor’ plays a role, it is far from the only consideration. The fear of Russian expansion, the desire to maintain transatlantic unity, economic opportunities, and domestic political pressures all contribute to a complex web of motivations.

However, as you rightly point out, the refusal to acknowledge the complexity of the conflict and the insistence on a Manichean narrative risk leading to policies that are not only irrational but potentially catastrophic. The challenge for European leaders is to balance their commitment to Ukraine with the need to pursue a realistic and sustainable path to peace.”

Prompt for Part 2

DeepSeek doesn’t shy away from the “irrational” side of the unfolding drama. Because decisions made in the coming weeks and months will have major consequences for Europeans such as myself, I wasn’t ready to stop the conversation with my AI friends. In Part 2, I will publish the responses to the following prompt:

“You mention that the Europeans may be seeking ‘to justify and accelerate EU military integration and strategic autonomy.’ But you also state that ‘European leaders may fear economic repercussions if they break alignment with Washington, especially in trade negotiations and financial markets.’ This seems doubly contradictory. My initial question concerned the apparent decision of Europeans to side with Ukraine against the US, which presumably means breaking the alignment. But it’s also contradictory in the sense that assuming the burden of a continued war with Russia is unlikely to accelerate military integration, which can only be reasonably achieved if there is no active war taking place.

Do you agree that those contradictions would seem to limit the margin of maneuver of Europe, especially given that there are serious divisions among the European nations?”

Your thoughts

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue.

[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At Fair Observer, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.