March 7, 2025 (EIRNS)—What’s a British geopolitician to do, when he realizes the “rules-based order” has crumbled, and that the EU and Ukraine won’t have a determining role in peace talks to end the Ukraine war? A desperate William Matthews, a senior research fellow at the infamous Chatham House, also known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, put out his proposal in March 6 article recommending that Europe must now consider the “unpalatable” option of engaging China “in pursuit of a peace deal that gives Ukraine a seat at the table.” Matthews is a senior research fellow at Chatham House’s Asia-Pacific program.
Trump has reached out to Russia and suspended military aid to Ukraine. While “Europe’s leaders have run out of good options” Mathews says, they do have a “short window of opportunity in which to demonstrate that they can adapt to a world of great power politics before Washington and Moscow force a Ukraine peace deal.” This may be unsavory, Matthews goes on, given Beijing’s support for Moscow’s war in Ukraine, but “the worst possible outcome for Europe would be a U.S.-Russia peace deal later joined by China from which Ukraine and Europe are entirely sidelined.”
The author assures readers that broad alignment with China won’t be necessary, although there are risks to any engagement, and “mitigating its harmful influence” will continue. But, in an expression of pure British geopolitical lunacy, he insists that Europe must be willing to exercise leverage over the U.S., and China has expressed willingness to develop a peace plan, and called on Ukraine and Europe to be present at peace talks. He is sure that China “has leverage over Russia and can serve as a counter to an antagonistic U.S.” Engagement is a way “to gain leverage in a system of great power competition–something European leaders still fail to grasp.”
Mathews admits that “rhetorical condemnation of U.S. policy” or attempting to woo Trump by appealing to the “special relationship” won’t cut it. Europe “must retaliate against U.S. abandonment now, or risk “becoming increasingly beholden to a coercive Washington as American and European interests diverge.” The “rapidly-shifting geopolitical situation requires an ability to rapidly pivot one’s strategy,” Matthews concludes. The aspect that European leaders would find the most unpalatable about engaging China, “but which is by far the most necessary—is the profound shift in mindset it requires. It means recognizing that the world cannot operate indefinitely according to universalist ideals and accepting that their vision of a liberal rules-based order is now a dangerous anachronism. To preserve its values on its own soil, Europe must let go of the idea that they can form the basis of a global order.”