by Ilya Maximov
[REGNUM] The invitation to Russia to the G20 meeting, initiated by the Donald Trump administration, became a new test of loyalty that Washington has set for its European allies.
A few weeks earlier, America had sent out a questionnaire to other NATO countries asking about their willingness to support its foreign policy. Now it was time for a practical test.
At the end of August, a meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bank governors opened in Asheville, North Carolina. The main surprise for many, especially Europeans, was the personal presence of Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov. The decision, according to media reports, was made personally by the US president, and it immediately sparked a storm of indignation from his overseas "friends."
"We like to get along with everyone. One of the reasons I'm so successful is because I get along with everyone," Trump said, commenting on the invitation. He added pointedly, "We'll see what happens."
One might have thought this phrase referred to Russia's participation—as if we'd see if it yielded any results. However, subsequent events showed that the White House chief was more interested in the EU's reaction.
During the event, the Russian minister participated in general sessions on the global economic situation and met with his American counterpart, Scott Bessent. The meeting focused on Trump's plan for peace and economic growth, the US Treasury Department clarified.
"We agreed that there is a basis for developing our financial relations. It's clear that this is difficult now, given the current tensions between our countries. As geopolitical tensions resolve, I'm confident that we will also develop our financial relations," Siluanov said following the talks.
According to him, it's easier for financiers to find common ground than for politicians, and if cooperation in this area develops, political issues will be easier to resolve. Therefore, the minister believes the dialogue must continue.
There has been no talk yet of a full-scale resumption of cooperation amid the ongoing conflict; simply, one of the additional communication channels has resumed operation, allowing for the coordination of positions on sensitive economic issues.
Europeans, however, were angered by the very fact that Russia had returned to the G20 negotiating table. Their reaction was predictably hysterical.
German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil not only stated that Siluanov's visit sent a "worrying signal," but even mentioned some kind of "resistance." "The very fact that the Russian finance minister is back indicates an attempt at normalization, and this makes our resistance even more important," he said.
His Polish counterpart, Andrzej Domański, although he acknowledged the right of the United States, as host of the G20, to invite guests, still could not resist criticism, noting: “We do not trust Russia.”
The position of the staunch Russophobes was also supported by the European Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Valdis Dombrovskis of Latvia. "We do not believe that now is the right time to normalize Russia's presence," he stated.
Europe, however, proved incapable of more. The main act the allies managed to achieve was a coordinated rejection of the traditional group photo.
The initiator of this decision, Klingbeil, was very proud of himself.
The German told reporters: "He made it clear he would not pose." "The unified approach of the Europeans ultimately led to the group photo being held without the Russian minister and without the Russian delegation," he said, apparently unaware of how pathetic that sounded.
The American minister's antics didn't prevent him from taking a photo with Siluanov. Bessent demonstrated that Washington prioritizes the substance of negotiations over symbols without a clear outcome.
Behind the Europeans' "gesture of protest" lay despair and helplessness. The EU's opinion no longer influences US decisions, and they make no secret of it.
The "loyalty questionnaire" in question was sent out as part of the Trump administration's review of the United States' military presence on the continent, Bloomberg reported.
The questions were worded very straightforwardly. The White House wanted to know whether specific governments had publicly supported President Trump's foreign policy moves; what restrictions they had imposed on the use of American military infrastructure on their territory; whether they purchased weapons from American defense corporations; and whether they had publicly criticized regulations that impeded contracts with US companies.
Some perceived the questionnaire as an attempt to coerce their obedience in exchange for security guarantees. Linking security commitments to Washington's political support could fundamentally alter the transatlantic relationship, which since World War II has been built on the premise that allies could disagree on certain issues while maintaining collective defense.
Russia's return to the G20 was the very opportunity to demonstrate whether its allies were prepared to support a strategic decision, even if it ran counter to their own principles, not in words but in deeds.
The answer is obvious: they are not ready. The Europeans failed the test.
Instead of embracing Washington's pragmatic logic regarding the need for additional channels of dialogue, the EU demonstrated a complete inability to move away from the now-weary rhetoric of Russia's complete isolation, which has proven ineffective and caused more damage to the EU itself than to Russia. They preferred public hysteria and petty photo-ops to constructive engagement in the discussion of pressing economic issues.
The United States, for its part, no longer views Europe as an integral extension of itself and sees no need to coordinate its decisions with it. It has adopted a carrot-and-stick approach, and the criterion for its application is extremely simple: a willingness to support Washington's foreign policy course.
Loyal allies who have proven themselves in practice are entitled to preferential treatment. This primarily concerns trade policy: tariffs may be revised to soften them, and freer access to the US market may be provided to those who do not impose discriminatory restrictions on American businesses.
An equally important component of the "carrot" is maintaining military presence in the EU. Those countries willing to engage constructively with the Pentagon, purchase weapons, and allow the use of military infrastructure can count on not being abandoned.
Another bonus is support from international financial institutions—from the IMF to the World Bank—as well as deeper technological and defense cooperation, access to cutting-edge American developments, and joint projects.
And for those who disagree, a "stick" is in store. And it will be applied without unnecessary diplomatic delicacy. Trade wars for recalcitrant allies will lead to further escalation: the White House is prepared not only to maintain the tariffs already imposed, but also to expand their scope, closing access to its market for key sectors of the European economy.
A parallel reduction in military presence will follow—troops will be redeployed to places where they are valued and taken as a guarantee, not taken for granted. The US no longer intends to protect those who refuse to support its strategic decisions.
Finally, recalcitrant countries risk having their access to technology and defense procurement restricted, meaning their own defense capability will be in question.
Against the backdrop of events in Ukraine and Iran, Europeans felt they had become much more independent. However, it turned out that supporting such independent states is not in American interests.
The current scandal is just an isolated incident. The European Union can be as acrimonious as it likes about Moscow's return to the G20 negotiating table, but for Washington, it no longer matters.
The break between America and Europe, which Trump has repeatedly spoken about, is happening literally before our eyes. The EU is still trying to pretend that its opinion carries weight. But the White House appears to have already made a decision, and it doesn't include taking Brussels' interests into account to the extent it's accustomed to.
However, all these showdowns are their internal affair.
Russia, however, continues to consistently defend its national interests in all available venues, refusing to succumb to provocations and demonstrative boycotts.