VÁN BÀI HORMUZ CÂN NÃO, EU TIẾN THOÁI LƯỠNG NAN KHI TRUMP GIA TĂNG SỨC ÉP

Ladies and gentlemen if on March 16 President Trump specifically named the countries that must contribute their share o ensure the international maritime route through the Strait of Hormuz remains unobstructed By March 17 Trump's call had yielded a result that was hardly feasible This left Mr Trump extremely disappointed He said this: We have 45 000 troops in Japan 45 000 in South Korea and 50 000 in Germany We are protecting all these countries but when we ask do you have any minesweepers of your own Then they replied so can't we just stay out of this Trump also mentioned that NATO countries were unwilling to join the mission to open the Strait of Hormuz We're collaborating with them on Ukraine a country thousands of miles away from us—there's no need for us to do so The European Union has also strongly opposed U S and Israeli support in the Strait of Hormuz This is not Europe's war and we are not the ones who started it No one wants to主动 engage in this conflict Germany Spain and Italy NATO allies immediately rejected the call for support of President Trump in keeping the strait continuously open German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius believes that adding more warships will not guarantee security on the high seas while questioning what a few small European destroyers could achieve that the powerful U S Navy could not German government spokesperson Stefan Cornelius said on March 16 in Berlin tha Neither the United States nor Israel consulted us before the war and Washington made it clear from the outset of the conflict that European support was unnecessary and was also undesirable Meanwhile Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Sanvini spoke to reporters On March 16 in Milan Italy stated that it is not at war with anyone and that sending military vessels Entering the war zone means taking part in the conflict Yes ladies and gentlemen all these developments indicate a certain situation that is currently taking place The incident at Cha Chung where no one cried revolved around the issue of ensuring the safety of ships can pass safely through the Strait of Hormuz and international maritime transport It has become an extremely difficult issue to resolve among the world's leading nations China asserts opposition to the U S and refuses to join the maritime alliance concerning the strategically vital Hormuz Strait even America's allies such as the EU and leading NATO members are pushing back against them right into the strategic trap This is not a trap in the sense that Washington secretly planned it There is only one plan available and it's a strategic trap involving land speculation and policy manipulation Europe may be right in the short term when saying this is not our fight But that very statement could backfire and undermine their standing in the Ukraine dossier and in the entire debate over European security Objectively speaking from the standpoint of Brussels and Berlin find that argument far from unreasonable they view the Strait of Hormuz as a battlefield gh risk of escalation while Europe is unwilling to be drawn into a conflict instigated by the US and Israel Driving the rhythm especially within them where the Russia-Ukraine war still rages In combat terms they also had a point in questioning what a few European frigates could accomplish there e place where the U S Navy has failed to achieve In other words Europe's response is a certain kind of reaction a mix of escalating fear distrust in Washington's war objectives and wishing to stay distant from a conflict beyond the continent yet it is precisely here that it emerges e trap is exactly as we've discussed When the EU says this isn't our fight en they are inadvertently giving Trump a response he can immediately turn around and use against them So whose war is Ukraine's Who is responsible for European security Because the Trump administration had made it clear from the outset that Europe must bear the bulk of the security burden of its own continent Reuters also reported that by the end of 2025 Pentagon officials We informed European officials that Washington wants Europe to take over most of the defense capacity at's the usual NATO projection for 2027 and NATO has also confirmed this trend of shifting burdens defense typically shifts from the United States to Europe As for Mr McRuth NATO's secretary-general he stated that the organizatio It will increasingly be led by Europe even as the United States remains anchored in the alliance That's why politically speaking the Hormuz Strait has created a very dangerous image The image is this: when a crisis occurs outside Europe the EU has the right to saying it's not our business but when crises arise in Ukraine or even right here at home NATO on the other hand demands that the U S view it as an existential interest What is this To Trump and his voters this is America this is a very standard double-edged argument that's easily dismantled Trump could tell Americans Europeans wanting to pick and choose their obligations while demanding the U S shoulder the entire burden That is why we say the EU has fallen into a logical trap which is particularly dangerous In the context of the Ukraine conflict in Ukraine's file the media previously noted tha Europe has complained about being left out of the negotiations on a Ukraine peace deal while Washington increasingly emphasizes that Europe must take greater responsibility for its own defense s own voice If Europe wants to have a decisive say in how the war in Ukraine ends ey simultaneously weaken the leverage precisely because they don't truly want to bear most of the costs and security risks and now you're at odds with Washington In plain terms you can't expect a seat at the decision-making table while simultaneously opposing the very power that holds it It just dodged both the invoice and the dangerous part The second trap was even deeper The foam had already exposed it e imbalance between the right to wage war and the right to demand protection Europe is striving building the argument that NATO is a defensive alliance not a tool for military campaigns America's unilateral choices in the Middle East But the Trump side could counter with an equally symmetric argument Ukraine cannot indefinitely remain an open-ended security guarantee from the United States for Europe Once Europe openly establishes the principle that we will not be involved in conflicts initiated by others e provocation not us initiating it could have led Washington to take action as well e same principle applied to Ukraine in a way detrimental to the EU The U S did not initiate the dispute Ukraine so why must American taxpayers bear such a long-term burden This is a flawed line of reasoning strategy yet it aligns perfectly with the transactional mindset of the alliance that President Trump has championed pursuing it from the very beginning the signature now The issue is becoming increasingly serious because Europe has not yet Yet there is still no comprehensive plan available to replace the U S security umbrella Most European countries still largely rely on America's nuclear deterrence It is precisely this that Macron is challenging The French president needing to update the country's nuclear doctrine has prompted discussions across Europe about France's potential It played a larger role highlighting concerns about the reliability of the nuclear umbrella under Trump What's particularly striking is that Europe is currently in a very awkward position wanting greater strategic autonomy but not yet capable of fully sustaining itself without reliance on the United States In such a state Another overly tepid reaction from Hormuz makes it even easier for Washington to use as evidence that Europe is unreliable Not ready to be allies in sharing the burden even as they still wish to retain the privilege of enjoying America's security umbrella And if we trace this thread all the way to Ukraine to the major conflict in Eastern Europe Then what is the biggest consequence here Not that NATO collapses immediately or that the U S abandons Europe right away but the biggest consequence is that Trump gains additional political leverage to push Europe into taking on a heavier share securing Ukraine's postwar future continental rearmament and even accepting a potential settleme Ending the war would make Brussels seem less right At that point Hormuz would no longer be a Middle Eastern issue has become a mirror reflecting an uncomfortable truth: Europe wants strategic veto power but have not yet demonstrated the corresponding level of readiness to share strategic insights A few days ago Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that Europe's sole objective was s to prevent U S President Trump from achieving peace through negotiation Many people view this merely as a familiar propagandistic statement from Moscow But when placed in the proper strategic context of the current situation it becomes clear that it is not so straightforward It's not merely an external statement but a blow aimed at the very structure of Western reasoning especially that of Europe itself First and foremost it's essential to clearly understand how Russia is redefining the war in Ukraine During the initial phase the West constructed a fairly clear narrative: this was an invasion The responsibility for prolonging the war lies with Russia But when the situation shifted to a phase of mutual stalemate as war costs rise and the prospect of achieving an absolute victory diminishes Far off the question about negotiation began to arise And precisely at this point Russia changed its narrative e situation From being seen as the aggressor Moscow began trying to position itself as the party ready to end the conflict war ready to sit at the negotiation table As for the West specifically the EU and NATO they have become The other side doesn't want peace Putin's statement therefore is not merely a simple assertion but rather an effort to shift perceptions He doesn't need to prove that Russia is entirely right just raise a question within the political sphere: if peace were truly desired why then is Europe Why wouldn't he support diplomatic efforts especially when a U S president like Trump is involved send signals wanting to end this conflict swiftly And it is precisely here that Europe's problem begins became evident The EU has long cultivated its image as a central pillar of international law on the principle-based order and peace But in reality their strategic interests are entirely different far from matching the immediate end of war A prolonged conflict even if one side is clearly weaker could still weaken Russia and draw Moscow into a prolonged state of exhaustion Therefore for some countries Europe's peace right now is not necessarily the optimal solution It is precisely this contradiction that has created a vacuum that Putin is exploiting And when he claims that the EU and NATO are obstructing peace at is precisely targeting an inconsistency within Europe which speaks extensively about peace but the actions did not fully serve peace And in a global information environment such as s way once this inconsistency is exposed the entire European argument collapses from the West has been significantly weakened And notably Putin's statement in question emerged at the exact moment Trump was pressuring his allies over burden-sharing eavy-handed from the Ukraine story to the Strait of Hormuz When Europe shows hesitation even going so far as to refuse participation in a maritime alliance aimed at safeguarding global energy supply routes en they inadvertently created an image that was highly exploitable—that they only joined battles when it suited them aligning with their own interests and avoiding unwanted risks And in that context Putin's argument suddenly became sharper He doesn't need to prove that Russia is more peace-loving He just needs to pose a reflective question like this: f Europe has the right to say this isn't our fight in a place like Hormuz So why can they demand that the U S view Ukraine as an obligation that cannot be refused And it is precisely this question that has shaken the ethical foundation upon which the EU has relied to maintain its unity International support over the years From a strategic perspective this is quite a clever move They don't need to win on the battlefield to gain an advantage they only need to weaken unity e opponent's argument When the West began to debate internally about the war's objectives As for the timing of the negotiations and the costs to bear that in itself constitutes a form of victory for Moscow What's more noteworthy is that Putin's statement inadvertently reflects a significant reality The current international order no longer operates entirely based on shared principles as it once did s as well which is gradually shifting toward a model where national interests and strategic calculations are placing ethics and consistency above all else Europe is no exception to this trend yet they are the most vulnerable when inconsistency is exposed because they have built their own image upon that ethical foundation and in the current global landscape what worries Europe the most is It's not about a specific decision but about how they are executing their strategy— not through control but through trust in their assumptions Europe today stands on a very fragile foundation built upon three concurrent assumptions They believe that the United States despite its complaints and shifts in tone under Donald Trump will ultimately still be unable to step away from its role in safeguarding global maritime order The other thing is they believe the U S can change its rhetoric but not its core actions And this is a historic belief built up over many decades while Washington always takes the lead in maintaining supply lines from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean At the same time Europe is betting that Iran won't go too far Tehran may exert pressure provoke disturbances or create localized shocks but it won't truly close the strait of cork instead pushing the world into a full-scale energy crisis This is an assumption based on the familiar Middle Eastern pattern of controlled escalation The point where parties always pause before crossing the lane from which there is no turning back And their third more nuanced assumption was the belief that China although not aligned with the West They will continue to act as an indispensable stabilizing force Beijing relies heavily on Middle Eastern oil and gas so it also has an incentive to exert pressure back on Iran o ensure uninterrupted energy flow Europe does not trust China politically but it is betting on China's economic interests as a force that stabilizes and holds things in place And gentlemen these three assumptions considered individually may each sound reasonable but when placed together they create an extremely dangerous structure: Europe no longer controls any of the variables but merely hoping that all variables will work out as expected And in strategy the greatest danger is not a wrong assumption but rather multiple flawed assumptions existing simultaneously Just one link breaking would cause the entire structure to tremble immediately If the United States under domestic political pressure were truly to shrink its role as global maritime police—something Mr Trump has repeatedly hinted at— Then Europe would immediately realize it has no alternative energy source The issue was no longer whether to join the alliance ensuring the Strait of Hormuz remained open but who will protect their very own vital interests The second assumption if Iran surpasses the threshold and genuinely disrupts the flow of energy en Europe's economy already weakened by the reduction in Russian energy supplies It will endure a second shock direct and even harder to control At that point any calculations about staying outside to avoid risk would become meaningless because the risk would find them anyway And in the third assumption if China does not act as a stabilizing force or even exploit the crisis to reshape trade routes in their favor Europe would be completely trapped—losing cheap energy from Russia while failing to control supplies from the Middle East and also lacks leverage against China In such a context the crucial question is no longer whether the EU is right or wrong But who will benefit from this collapse The answer isn't just one single name but rather a hierarchy of interests Putin is undoubtedly the one strategically benefiting An energy-unsure internally divided and economically weakened Europe will no longer have the strength to susta Long-term pressure on Russia over the Ukraine dossier At that point Moscow wouldn't need to win on the battlefield—just exhausting its opponent would be enough Russia's proactive pivot toward Asia even declaring it has no intention of prioritizing a return to the European market shows it has prepared accordingly A separate long-term restructuring But upon closer examination China stands to benefit the most from the restructuring A weakened Europe will rely increasingly on goods supply chains and industrial capacity from Asia Meanwhile Beijing may leverage the crisis to strengthen its role as a global hub for commerce and manufacturing while simultaneously increasing its geopolitical influence over Europe In other words Russia could be the one to relieve pressure But China is the one with the ability to restructure long-term advantages in this story And that is the greatest irony While Europe seeks to reduce its reliance on Russia for security reasons it risks sliding into another form of dependence Less military in nature but more profound in economic and structural terms Ultimately the issue isn't whether Europe made the right or wrong choice in each individual decision but the point is that they are executing their strategy based on belief But in a world where major powers are all playing by the logic of power the greatest danger isn't an opponent growing stronger but you're still believing they'll act according to your expectations Not at all ladies and gentlemen The world has changed a great deal already We've witnessed too many conflicts lately and it's become clear that everything is slipping beyond the rules we once relied on Even a story like this in the Middle East Let's just wait and see how it all unfolds in the end There will be plenty of surprises That concludes today's program We invite you to share your personal thoughts in the section below Lê Minh says hello and looks forward to seeing you again