The EU foreign policy chief has declared that “the free world needs a new leader”, as European leaders threw their support behind Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, after the stunning White House confrontation between him and Donald Trump.
Leaders from across Europe expressed their solidarity with the Ukrainian leader after the fractious exchange with JD Vance, the US vice-president, and Trump, who claimed he was not “ready for peace” and accused him of “gambling with world war three”.
Although in general the European leaders did not name the US president, their comments late on Friday laid bare the gaping rift between the US and its traditional allies in Europe over the war in Ukraine.
In a social media post Kaja Kallas, the EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, wrote: “Ukraine is Europe! We stand by Ukraine. We will step up our support to Ukraine so that they can continue to fight back the aggressor.
“Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge.”
Ukraine is Europe! But can Europe truly lead without U.S. military might? Good article, but lacks deeper analysis of potential consequences.
😺😺🐱🐱
The only people who ever claimed the Americans were the “leader of the free world” were Americans.
Moat of the rest of us quietly rolled our eyes whenever they called themselves that.
Exactly.
Occasionally one of our leaders would mouth such empty platitudes when we wanted something, but only because the US loves that phrase.
I vote Zelensky
Free world needs a new leader
Don’t worry about the “free world,” just focus on Europe.
But they are talking about the free world, the whole free world.
And just to be clear “free world” is not a synonym for the USA, it means democratic countries in general.
By saying “the free world needs a new leader”, what they mean is, the US can’t be in charge any more, because they aren’t part of the free world right now. So that’s the situation, they’re going to have to step up and focus on more than just Europe.
Why do the Democratic countries of the world need a “leader?” Why is it necessary for one of the democratic countries to “be in charge” of the others? The relationship between the democratic countries of the world - and all countries of the world - should be one of mutual respect and equality. There shouldn’t be a power hierarchy among countries, democratic or otherwise.
Do you know the difference between leadership and mgmt at work?
Any nation that wishes to seek the “leadership” of the EU is free to do so, but nations should also be free to choose autonomy, independence, and self guidance.
I’m with you in spirit, but may I please join Europe?
There’s another union of states right here on our northern border…
It’s there like an application form to fill out? Do I need to write it up in French as well?
They might not want you to call them “states”
Angela Merkel basically took over last time Trump was around.
This Canuck really liked Merkel, but that’s just my opinion. Germans didn’t seem to approve of her much.
Let’s just say it’s complicated.
She’s a conservative and domestically that meant a focus on the status quo, infrastructure was neglected (digital and otherwise), a lot of privatization, stagnating social programs, stagnating wages and more.
Her foreign policy and her statesmanship on the other hand was widely respected.
Her foreign policy and her statesmanship on the other hand was widely respected.
FWIW, in Ukraine (and many other parts of Europe), her foreign policy w.r.t russia is seen as de-facto enabling russian genocidal imperialism (as a conscious and pre-mediated decision). She nurtured and enabled putin every step of the way.
I am of course not speaking for German public, since I’ve never lived in Germany.
That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. 👍
The other reply you already got pretty much sums up how I feel about Merkel, not a fan exactly. But I’d like to add one specific thing she has my respect for.
During the refugee crisis of 2015 there was a point where her side of the political aisle was approaching hysteria. There were hundreds of thousands of people streaming into the EU from all over the middle east and north Africa, crowds at every major train station and border crossing, normal refugee infrastructure way beyond the point of collapse. So conservatives were starting to seriously argue for the suspension of asylum rights, closing borders, etc. And Merkel was usually one to wait stuff like this out, see what possible consensus forms and then adopt it as if it was her idea all along. But not this time. She saw it starting to gain traction, just came out publicly and said “We will manage this”, and that was that for her. Discussion died immediately.
I may not respect much of what she did before or after, but taking that stance at that moment as clearly as she did, that I respect her for.
It irks me that you have to read two full paragraphs before the name of the EU foreign chief is mentioned while Trump and Vance get mentioned a lot.
Do we really need one?
No. But yes.
Like pretty much every social construct, it only really exists as far as people have faith in it. Money only has value because we blindly assume that the grocery store will accept them. Any agreement only has the value of the belief it will be honoured. Law only has meaning if we believe they’ll be applied.
In any coalition there will be participant members with disparate interests. Someone needs to speak for the whole to generate the faith that the collation really does have alignment (that the coalition truely exists). In turn there must be faith that constituent members really do support the direction-setter, at least in so far that they won’t leave the coalition given internal disagreement.
It’s the “U” in USA. Without a federal government, without a leader, it’s just the SA.
The USA was the de-facto leader of the Western world since about May 8, 1945. I think history will recall that reign ended Feb 28 2025. I’m not sure if it’ll be the EU body directly from here on out, or if it’ll directly be France or Germany who acts in the function of the leader of the free world.
Thats a really long winded way of saying, “No, but there will be one anyways.”
No. It was a long winded way of saying “it’s not strictly necessary from a purely functional standpoint, but it is in reality because humans are mushy and irrational especially in groups”
Fair enough.
A free world cant have a leader…
