The global order is shifting, and at its core, Ukraine’s ongoing struggle against Russian aggression is revealing stark geopolitical realities. The carefully cultivated worldview of European politicians—built on stability, cooperation, and economic interdependence—has rapidly disintegrated. As the United States redefines its foreign policy under the Trump administration, and Europe scrambles for solutions, one urgent question emerges: Is Ukraine’s fate already sealed?
While definitive conclusions remain premature, the growing geopolitical storm clouds signal that Europe can no longer afford illusions. Should Russia be treated with leniency, its next imperialist move is only a matter of time. The Baltic states, Poland, Romania, Finland, Sweden, and other vulnerable nations face an existential threat.
Thus, the time has come for these nations to forge their own security framework—one independent of NATO’s unpredictability and the European Union’s ineffectiveness. The Baltic-Carpathian Alliance (Intermarium 2.0) has been proposed as a robust, regional military pact designed to stop Russian expansionism once and for all.
But what would such an alliance entail? And more importantly, would it be enough to deter Russia’s imperial ambitions?
The Current Geopolitical Landscape: A System on the Brink
To fully understand the necessity of Intermarium 2.0, we must first analyze the geopolitical chessboard.
1. Ukraine: A Nation Under Siege
Ukraine is struggling on all fronts. Western supply weaknesses have left Kyiv at a quantitative and technological disadvantage, forcing retreats, particularly in the east. However, despite its challenges, Ukraine has demonstrated remarkable resilience, developing a robust domestic defense industry and maintaining the largest and most battle-hardened military in Europe—excluding Russia.
Yet, Ukraine remains critically dependent on American and European support. Without continued aid, its ability to sustain the fight is severely compromised.
2. Russia: A War Economy in Full Gear
For over a year, as American support for Ukraine weakened, Russia has slowly but steadily advanced. Though lacking dramatic breakthroughs, Moscow has adapted to wartime economic conditions, maintaining its offensive despite heavy equipment and personnel losses.
However, Russia cannot sustain this war indefinitely. Current estimates suggest the Kremlin may have the resources to continue fighting for another one to one-and-a-half years. But with the right level of Ukrainian and regional support, Russia’s expansionist campaign could be thwarted.
3. The United States: A Policy of Disengagement
The Trump administration is aggressively redefining America’s global role. Whether termed isolationism, offshore balancing, or de-globalization, the goal is clear: divest from Ukraine as quickly as possible.
The question is how far this disengagement will go. Will Washington pressure Russia into a peace deal from a position of strength, or will it abandon Ukraine outright? Recent trends suggest the latter, which could have catastrophic consequences for Eastern Europe.
4. China: A Calculated Spectator
From the sidelines, China is watching with interest. Whether the conflict ends in a prolonged stalemate or a decisive Russian victory, Beijing is positioning itself to benefit. If the West weakens, China strengthens its own geopolitical and economic leverage.
5. Europe: A Decade of Inaction
Despite years of warning signs—from Russia’s invasion of Georgia (2008) to the annexation of Crimea (2014)—Europe failed to prepare. The European Union, despite its immense economic power, passively watched American actions rather than taking proactive leadership.
The numbers speak for themselves:
- The EU’s cumulative GDP in 2024 was $18 trillion.
- Over three years, that totals $54 trillion.
- Yet, the EU has only allocated $145 billion in aid to Ukraine—a mere 0.3% of its GDP.
Had Europe invested even 1% of its GDP per year in Ukraine, the war could have been over within months. Instead, Ukraine was left vulnerable, and Europe now faces the direct threat of war on its own soil.
The Case for Intermarium 2.0: A New Security Paradigm
The failure of NATO and the EU to act decisively means that nations directly threatened by Russia must take security into their own hands.
A new alliance, the Baltic-Carpathian Alliance (Intermarium 2.0), is proposed. While the name may vary—the Northern League, the Cold Alliance, or the Intermarium Coalition—the objective remains singular: halt Russian expansionism through collective military, economic, and strategic cooperation.
Core Members of Intermarium 2.0
The alliance would be composed of states most threatened by Russia, including:
- Poland and Romania – The two largest and most militarily capable states in the region.
- Finland and Sweden – Key Nordic states with advanced military technology and strategic positioning.
- The Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) – Small but strategically critical nations bordering Russia.
- Norway – A vital Arctic partner with an interest in countering Russian influence in the north.
Additional members could include Denmark, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Moldova, and possibly the United Kingdom.
Military Capabilities of the Alliance
Despite Russia’s overwhelming military size, the collective strength of Intermarium 2.0 is formidable:
- Over 400,000 active troops (compared to Russia’s estimated 600,000 troops in Ukraine).
- Nearly 200 F-35 fighter jets, alongside Swedish Gripens and F-16s.
- Advanced tank fleets, including Leopard 2, Abrams, and Korean K2 tanks.
- Integrated missile defense systems, such as Patriots, NASAMS, and Iron Dome variants.
With proper coordination, these nations could present a credible deterrent against Russian aggression.
Key Policy Objectives
To ensure its effectiveness, Intermarium 2.0 must adopt:
- Mandatory defense spending of at least 5% of GDP, with Baltic states reaching 7-10%.
- Joint military-industrial cooperation, ensuring that all defense investments remain within the alliance.
- Standardized weaponry and logistics, enabling efficient resupply and mutual reinforcement.
- Strategic infrastructure projects, including shared military bases, arms depots, and communication networks.
- A nuclear deterrence strategy, potentially under an American or French nuclear umbrella.
Conclusion: The Future of European Security
Europe stands at a crossroads. The dream of a peaceful, post-Cold War Europe has collapsed.
As the United States withdraws from its traditional leadership role, and as Russia continues its imperial ambitions, Eastern and Northern Europe must take their fate into their own hands.
A Baltic-Carpathian Alliance—Intermarium 2.0—could provide the security and stability necessary to prevent war on European soil. However, this would require bold, decisive action, significant investment, and a willingness to challenge entrenched geopolitical assumptions.
Failure to act now risks repeating history. As Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson recently stated:
“Europe must take greater responsibility for our own security. The time for waiting has ended.”
The question remains: Will Europe rise to the challenge, or will it once again fall victim to history’s brutal calculus?
