European leaders gathered in Dublin to reaffirm their support for Ukraine, even as diplomatic negotiations involving Washington, Moscow and Kiev continued elsewhere. Historian Tarik Cyril Amar argues that Europe's political establishment has become an obstacle to peace, unwilling to reconsider a strategy that has brought years of destruction and enormous economic costs. But is continued European support prolonging the conflict, or is it essential to securing a settlement that protects Ukraine's sovereignty?
INR Report: Based on analysis by Tarik Cyril Amar for RT HERE. Published 12 November 2026.
Europe Meets Without Russia
The European Political Community summit in Dublin has exposed a fundamental division over the future of the Ukraine conflict, according to historian and political commentator Tarik Cyril Amar.
Writing for RT, Amar questions why a gathering intended to discuss Europe's future excludes Russia, one of the continent's largest countries and a central participant in the conflict that has transformed European security.
The European Political Community brings together European Union members and other European governments to discuss shared political and strategic concerns.
Russia and Belarus were absent from the Dublin meeting.
For Amar, their exclusion illustrates a wider failure of European diplomacy. He argues that a genuinely continental approach to security should involve engagement with Moscow rather than treating Russia as permanently outside Europe's political future.
The opposing argument is that Russia's invasion of Ukraine fundamentally damaged trust and that European governments are entitled to organise their security discussions without inviting Moscow.
That disagreement reaches the heart of the debate: can Europe establish a lasting peace without Russia's participation in the eventual settlement?
The Proxy War Argument
Amar's central contention is that European governments have become deeply invested in a conflict he characterises as a Western proxy war against Russia.
He argues that European policy has contributed to the continuation of fighting while imposing devastating costs on Ukraine and its population.
In his assessment, European leaders have repeatedly rejected opportunities to address Russia's security concerns and pursue a broader diplomatic settlement.
Amar traces this history through President Vladimir Putin's 2007 Munich security speech, NATO's 2008 Bucharest summit and the disputes surrounding Ukraine's relationship with the European Union.
He maintains that NATO expansion and Western security policies helped destabilise the European security environment.
This interpretation is strongly contested.
Ukraine and its Western supporters argue that the conflict results from Russia's decision to invade a sovereign country and that Ukraine has the right to choose its international relationships.
They also maintain that providing military assistance is necessary to prevent further territorial conquest.
The distinction matters because a claim that Western policy contributed to tensions does not remove Russia's responsibility for its military actions.
Nevertheless, the question of whether European security arrangements contributed to the deterioration of relations deserves serious examination.
Washington Changes Course
Amar contrasts the Dublin summit with diplomatic initiatives involving the United States, Russia and Ukraine.
He identifies negotiations in Abu Dhabi and Moscow, alongside the prospect of further high-level international discussions, as evidence that diplomatic efforts are moving forward outside the principal European political institutions.
His argument is that Washington has become more willing to engage Moscow directly and consider security questions that European leaders have been reluctant to address.
The Dublin summit therefore represents, in Amar's view, a political establishment struggling to adapt to a changing American approach.
However, diplomatic meetings do not necessarily mean the parties are close to agreement.
Major disagreements remain over territory, security guarantees, military deployments and the conditions required for a lasting ceasefire.
A successful negotiation would need to reconcile Russia's demands with Ukraine's sovereignty and the security concerns of neighbouring European states.
The existence of talks is encouraging, but their value will ultimately be determined by whether they produce an agreement that can be implemented and sustained.
Macron's Warning
French President Emmanuel Macron's comments at the summit feature prominently in Amar's analysis.
Amar interprets Macron's remarks as evidence of growing European concern that Washington is reducing its commitment to the conflict and leaving European governments with greater responsibility.
The author describes this as a sense of abandonment among European leaders who have relied heavily on American military, technological and diplomatic support.
Yet Amar also acknowledges that the United States has not completely withdrawn its assistance.
He points to continuing American technological support for Ukraine, including satellite communications capabilities, as evidence that Washington remains involved.
This distinction is significant.
The United States may be pursuing a different diplomatic strategy without abandoning Ukraine or its European allies.
European governments, meanwhile, face difficult decisions about defence spending, security commitments and their future relationship with Washington.
The deeper question is whether Europe can develop an independent security policy that supports diplomacy while addressing the concerns of countries that regard Russia as a continuing threat.
Zelensky Under Pressure
Amar directs particularly strong criticism towards Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky.
He argues that Zelensky continues to receive enthusiastic support from European leaders despite questions surrounding corruption, governance and the human costs of the war.
The article refers to investigations and allegations involving Ukrainian officials and associates, presenting them as evidence of serious problems within the country's political establishment.
Corruption allegations involving public funds and senior officials are matters of legitimate public interest, particularly where substantial international assistance is involved.
However, allegations against individuals do not automatically establish personal criminal responsibility on the part of Zelensky.
Amar's characterisation of the Ukrainian leadership as a criminal regime is his political judgement, not a finding established by the article.
A rigorous assessment requires distinguishing documented investigations, proven offences and broader accusations about political responsibility.
European governments also have legitimate reasons to demand accountability for the assistance they provide.
That includes transparent financial oversight, independent investigations and safeguards against the misuse of reconstruction and military funding.
The Corruption Question
Amar argues that European leaders have failed to respond adequately to repeated corruption controversies in Ukraine.
He references the Mindich affair and other reported investigations involving alleged criminal activity and relationships between powerful individuals.
The central issue is whether international assistance is subject to sufficient oversight and whether Ukrainian institutions can investigate politically sensitive allegations independently.
Ukraine has faced longstanding challenges involving corruption, political influence and the effectiveness of public institutions.
Those problems did not begin with the current conflict, although wartime conditions can complicate transparency and accountability.
For European taxpayers, the scale of financial and military assistance makes effective oversight particularly important.
Governments have an obligation to demonstrate that public funds are being used for their stated purposes.
They must also ensure that allegations of misconduct are investigated without political interference.
Amar sees the continuing diplomatic support for Zelensky as evidence that European leaders are overlooking these problems.
An alternative interpretation is that European governments distinguish between supporting Ukraine's defence and endorsing every action of its political leadership.
Both the need for Ukrainian security and the demand for financial accountability can be pursued simultaneously.
Europe's Strategic Dilemma
The Dublin summit highlights a wider dilemma confronting European governments.
Continuing military assistance may help Ukraine resist Russian demands and strengthen its position in negotiations.
But prolonged fighting also carries immense human and economic costs, while creating the risk of further escalation.
Reducing military assistance could encourage compromise, yet it could also weaken Ukraine's negotiating position and leave it vulnerable to renewed military pressure.
European leaders must therefore decide how to combine deterrence with diplomacy.
Amar argues that their current approach places too much emphasis on sustaining the conflict and too little on achieving a negotiated settlement.
He also questions whether European governments are capable of acting independently from Washington.
His analysis suggests that Europe's reliance on American security leadership has left it poorly prepared for a change in US priorities.
That concern extends beyond Ukraine.
The conflict has exposed differences between European governments over defence spending, energy policy, relations with Russia and the future of NATO.
A durable settlement will require decisions about all of these issues.
Who Wants a Settlement?
One of Amar's strongest criticisms is that European leaders appear unwilling to reconsider their existing strategy despite the emergence of new diplomatic initiatives.
He argues that the Dublin summit demonstrated continued political loyalty to Zelensky rather than a willingness to pursue compromise.
Yet the motives of governments cannot be established solely from their public support for Ukraine.
European leaders frequently argue that a settlement must provide credible guarantees against renewed aggression.
Russia, meanwhile, insists that its own security concerns and territorial demands must be addressed.
Ukraine rejects proposals it considers incompatible with its sovereignty and security.
These competing positions explain why diplomatic progress remains difficult.
A settlement imposed without adequate guarantees could create the conditions for another conflict.
Equally, an unwillingness to negotiate achievable compromises could prolong the present war.
The critical test is whether the parties are prepared to identify realistic terms that protect civilian populations and reduce the risk of renewed fighting.
The Cost of Continuing War
Beyond the diplomatic disagreements lies the human cost.
Years of fighting have resulted in extensive casualties, displacement, destroyed infrastructure and serious economic disruption.
Ukrainian communities have suffered enormous damage, while Russian families have also experienced the consequences of prolonged military operations.
European economies have faced pressures involving energy security, defence expenditure and public finances.
The conflict has also contributed to wider international uncertainty affecting trade, investment and commodity markets.
These costs strengthen the argument for serious diplomatic engagement.
However, the urgency of ending the fighting does not resolve the difficult question of what constitutes an acceptable peace.
A ceasefire that leaves fundamental security disputes unresolved may prove temporary.
A settlement that creates enforceable commitments and reduces the likelihood of renewed conflict would offer greater long-term value.
The challenge is to move beyond competing declarations and establish arrangements capable of delivering that outcome.
Does This Affect New Zealand?
Although New Zealand is geographically distant from the conflict, its consequences extend into the international economic and political environment.
New Zealand has supported Ukraine through sanctions, assistance and diplomatic positions emphasising sovereignty and territorial integrity.
A prolonged conflict can contribute to instability in international energy markets, transport costs and global economic confidence.
Those pressures can affect New Zealand businesses and households through higher operating costs and uncertainty in export markets.
There is also a broader issue concerning the principles governing international relations.
New Zealand depends on rules intended to protect smaller countries from coercion and territorial aggression.
At the same time, it has an interest in diplomatic arrangements that reduce the likelihood of prolonged war between major powers.
These considerations need not be mutually exclusive.
New Zealand can support Ukraine's sovereignty while encouraging negotiations and demanding accountability for the use of international assistance.
Will This Make New Zealand Stronger?
The diplomatic divisions highlighted by the Dublin summit raise important questions about New Zealand's own foreign policy priorities.
Should New Zealand automatically align itself with the positions adopted by major Western governments, or should it place greater emphasis on independent assessment of the likely consequences?
The country benefits from maintaining constructive relationships with international partners, but those relationships should not prevent scrutiny of policies that may contribute to prolonged instability.
New Zealand's interests include predictable international trade, secure energy supplies, peaceful dispute resolution and respect for national sovereignty.
Will this make New Zealand stronger?
A sustainable peace in Ukraine could reduce international uncertainty and create opportunities for economic recovery.
But an agreement that fails to address the underlying security disputes could merely postpone further conflict.
New Zealand should support diplomatic efforts capable of delivering lasting stability while maintaining its commitment to international law.
Diplomacy or Deadlock?
Tarik Cyril Amar's assessment of the Dublin summit is uncompromising.
He portrays European leaders as increasingly disconnected from diplomatic developments elsewhere and unwilling to acknowledge the limitations of their existing strategy.
His argument challenges the assumption that continued military assistance necessarily brings peace closer.
However, the article's more sweeping accusations about European motives and the Ukrainian leadership remain matters of political interpretation rather than independently established conclusions.
The underlying questions are nevertheless important.
Can European governments support Ukraine while also encouraging meaningful negotiations with Russia?
Can Washington construct a settlement that addresses competing security concerns without disregarding Ukrainian sovereignty?
And can European leaders adapt to a diplomatic process in which their influence may be diminishing?
The answers will determine whether the current negotiations produce a lasting settlement or become another unsuccessful chapter in a conflict that has already imposed an enormous human cost.
The ultimate measure of success will not be the declarations made at international summits, but whether the fighting ends and a durable peace can be established.
Sources