Regardless of status, nations across Europe are speaking unanimously against the Russian attack on Ukraine. The European block’s unified reaction is striking since the Old Continent is known for its difficulty to find common grounds. This Pavlovian behaviour is indicative of strong wear and tear on the strategic sense that once characterised the old European nations. Metternich, Otto von Bismarck and Charles De Gaulle definitely look like ghost figures.
Europe reacting “as one” facing the Russian invasion of Ukraine
The UK, despite years of tension with its ex-allies from the mainland, is at the helm of the rhetorical opposition stance, with a pledge that “politically, economically, diplomatically and militarily the “hideous and barbaric venture of Vladimir Putin must end in failure”, also promising support to Ukraine beyond words. Baltic countries and Poland are also at the forefront of political opposition, for obvious reasons of direct security.
France and Germany are close behind with the European reaction, and have condemned the Russian attack in no unclear terms. German chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke of the “unscrupulousness of Putin, the blatant injustice, the pain of the Ukrainians […] a “cold-blooded war of aggression” that was “inhumane and contrary to international law” and that marked a “turning point in the history of our continent“, and warned that the attack would not remain without consequences. French president Emmanuel Macron, on the other hand, said Russia “launched a ‘brutal attack’ on Ukraine in an imperialist, revanchist violation of international law”, with equally fiery rhetoric.
Hard military support
Support for Ukraine went far beyond political statements and media punchlines, as the underdog has received unprecedented assistance, in all forms, in its struggle against the Russian giant. Ukraine less and less discreetly receives much help in the form of military training, intelligence and advising.
Virtually every country in Europe, alongside Japan, the United States, Canada and Australia has provided Ukraine with substantial military aid. This assistance comes in the form of anti-tank weapons, artillery units, small arms, armoured personnel carriers, attack helicopters and individual combat equipment, to name just a few.
Financial aid is not left aside, with comparable commitments in US dollars – 4.5 billion of which were pledged by the US congress alone, to help with the Ukrainian war effort. Overall, Ukraine is due to receive in excess of 100 billion euros/dollars in emergency relief funds, from across the world – nearly a fifth of its pre-war GNP. The fact that it is one of the most corrupt countries in the world seems to have disappeared from the analysis grid.
Finally, support comes in the form of military counselling and training. As stated above, the Western commitment to the crisis places it in a strange “hybrid” position regarding article 5 of NATO, or the mutual assistance agreement which binds EU members. Ukraine is a member of neither, and yet is receiving formidable assistance. Therefore, neither NATO nor the EU are officially at war against Russia, but are providing as much support against it as possible, while inching ever closer to direct conflict with a nuclear power.
Even Austria, Sweden and other non-NATO states are lining up, despite official non-alignment. A “strange war” is occurring, with a martial stance against Russia, despite no declaration of war, and despite article 5 not being triggered. Just as intriguing is Russia’s communication mainly targeting the West, and not Ukraine. But this “not so soft war” may get considerably harder, now that the Ukrainian counter-offensive is heating things up.
It is therefore unsurprising that Moscow had prepared counter-measures to the sanctions it knew were inevitably going to occur – such as trade bans and the exclusion from the Swift banking network which has crippled Russian banks.
Political stance of the EU core taking a righteous turn
European leaders are eager to shift their lexicon towards the moral and political area, and presenting themselves as human right protectors, in a black-and-white rendition. Political groups and the media in Europe have adopted a virtuous stance aiming at the defence of human rights and international stability, to justify their quasi-declaration of war on Russia, despite little or no parliamentary deliberations on the matter. The “axis of evil” concept is back, 30 years after the fall of the Soviet empire. In the days following the onslaught, Deutsche Welle Miodrag Soric wrote that “nobody could imagine Putin committing this crime, or that Russians would follow him in this mad pursuit”, and was soon followed by virtually every political establishment in Europe.
No EU countries have actively supported Moscow, but condemning Russia insufficiently is enough to be branded as pro-Russian, as a country or as a mere citizen. As is too often the case in Europe, only agreeing voices are welcome to debate. Numerous meetings and talks have been held regarding the crisis, but only between leaders, which already had similar opinions on the matter
Serbia is compromising its EU candidacy with their Russian popular support. Anti-NATO sentiments, dating back to the Kosovo intervention, are still very strong within the population, to the point that a very large majority supports Russia. In order to preserve its image regarding the West and not infuriate its own constituents, Belgrade opted to send a mere 3 million euros in humanitarian aid to Ukraine – not enough to save face, according to EU leaders. Hungary is also burning its European bridges by siding with Moscow, because of its dependence on Russian energy, and its unwillingness to face the backlash of sanctions, which other European nations are now suffering from.
“International community” and the rest of the world
By being too convinced of their opinions, or excessively docile towards the US, European leaders are failing to see that their response to the European crisis is not the only possible one, and to realise that the rest of the world is continuing on its own course. They invoke the loosely defined “international community” as a moral guarantee, conveniently forgetting about the forty-some countries, which either voted in favour of Russia or abstained at the UN vote in March, including South Africa, China and India.
China is choosing its own diplomatic stance, mostly composed of silence and refrain. Officially, Beijing has not provided Russia with any form of practical support, but its refusal to join the European condemnation of Russia at the UN summit has been equated by the West as pro-Russian sentiment, as was the case for South Africa, India and Hungary.
India has chosen not to scuttle its long-term relations with Russia, as PM Modi repeated his well-wishes towards Russia in the 2022 SCO summit: “Today’s era isn’t of war & I’ve spoken to you about it on the call. Today we’ll get the opportunity to talk about how can we progress on the path of peace. India-Russia has stayed together with each other for several decades.” India has worked on building a fruitful relationship to Russia over a very long period, and sees no reason to breach its neutrality tradition for a matter of no threat to Indian security.
Finally, the 2022 Vladivostok summit showed China sticking to its non-involvement policy and willing to maintain and develop economic ties with Russia, as before. China and Russia have also struck a deal for a gas pipeline project which will both stimulate the Russian economy, ruble included, and bolster Russia’s relevance on the international scene. More broadly, the incipient relaxation of Sino-Indian relations, the SCO meetings and their growing dynamism, and the neo-sovereignist rhetoric of a number of African countries illustrate a slow but probable “de-Westernization” of the world, which goes hand in hand with the upcoming de-dollarisation of international trade rarely noted by the Western mainstream media.
Europe is on thin ice
Perhaps the European Union alignment is not so much the result of proximity between its own interests and that of the United States, but more of its incapacity to think on its own feet and carve out sovereign strategies. If that were the case, countries like India and China would take an unprecedented leap in sovereignty and importance on the global scene, leaving Europe behind as mere vassal States.
What is really at stake is European people and elites’ ability to move away from an excessive adherence to a world view which benefits first and foremost the United States and their few closest allies, and make it ever more dependent on them.
It is therefore high time that the matter of sovereignty and reduced dependence, which is considered by ruling elites only with regards to Russia, now encompass all nations, so that all member-States of the European Union (which, despite the European Commission’s claims, is not monolithic) may consider their future with a true strategic vision based on their long-term sovereign interests.
Other countries in the world would be inspired to do likewise, to assess the benefits and ways in which they can partake in the permanent alliances which they are offered.
– The writer is a defence and security industry consultant having varied experience working with medium and large companies majorly in European market. The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of Raksha Anirveda
–The writer is a defence and security industry consultant with varied experience of working with medium and large companies majorly in European market. The views expressed are of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of Raksha Anirveda
