Last year can be seen as the year in which the united anti-Russian coalition fell apart. In essence, there are now three players acting against Russia (Ukraine, Europe, and the US), and each has its own interests.
By Sergey Poletaev
Sergey Poletaev has prepared a series of articles in which we analyze the position of each player and its goals and interests in the conflict, and suggest how Russia might respond.
In this piece, we focus on the European Union.
Read the first part about Ukraine here and the second one about the US here.
Let’s just go to war
Throughout last year, the liberal Western European coalition took over from the US and assumed the role of both instigator and orchestrator of a proxy conflict with Russia.
Initially, they hoped that Donald Trump would force Vladimir Putin to agree to ceasefire terms acceptable to them, after which it would be possible to rearm the Ukrainian military, deploy their own troops and, generally speaking, draw Ukraine into their military-political and economic sphere without undue military risks.
In other words, to continue doing what had originally been the goal of the EU and US and which, in fact, had been the cause of what Russia calls the “Special Military Operation.”
These plans were buried in Anchorage.
In essence, it was there that Trump abandoned attempts to impose Western Europe’s terms on Putin.
At the same time, Kiev was able to convince its new masters that it was capable of fighting for at least another two or three years.
Thus, the current plan was born: Western Europe gives Kiev money for the war, buys weapons from the US, sets up its own production of long-range strike drones, tightens the sanctions regime, and continues the conflict as it is, trading Ukrainians for time.
The assumption is that after a couple of years of such a war, Russia will be sufficiently weakened to allow their terms to be dictated to Moscow.
The mounting problems in the Russian economy seemed to lend credence to this scenario, whilst the neophyte enthusiasm with which the new strategists threw themselves into the fray left no other options.
In a sense, the situation of 2022 is repeating itself, when few in the West or Ukraine had any doubts about Russia’s imminent and inevitable defeat.
So, the goals have been set, the tasks defined.
The question of funding has been resolved, doubts within their own ranks have been quelled, and work is in full swing.
Until this wave of enthusiasm subsides, no meaningful negotiations with Western European countries are possible.
The EU’s strengths lie in its economy, which is vast compared to Russia’s, and a higher-than-expected degree of political consolidation.
Consequently, they can finance Ukraine with ease, slotting tens of billions in unplanned expenditure into budget tables, so seamlessly that it is difficult to trace the path of the money.
Their weakness lies in the fact that they are prepared to wage war against Russia only through the exhausted Ukrainian army, which is on the brink of collapse, and only from Ukrainian territory.
It is commonly believed among Russian experts that Western Europe is actively preparing for a direct military confrontation with Moscow, but this is hardly the case.
All the current hysterical, aggressive rhetoric is, rather, a defensive reaction, a consequence of fear and uncertainty.
They still refuse to believe that the US would not defend them if push came to shove.
And they are very reluctant to find themselves face to face with Russia.
Hence the gap between rhetoric and actual actions.
In practice, Western European states are avoiding major provocations and constantly backing down.
A necklace of wartime anxieties
Russia, for its part, is attempting to establish rules of engagement with the EU based on the same principles as those it established with the US under Joe Biden, and subsequently under Trump.
First and foremost, this means isolating the conflict within Ukraine.
Since the entire strategy of the Western European coalition is based on the assumption that the Ukrainian military will be able to hold the front line for an indefinite period, Moscow’s logic dictates that this is precisely where the blow must be struck, and it is the front line that must be broken.
Western Europe has no other such instrument at its disposal, nor is one in sight.
The second objective is to force Ukraine’s European rear to take full account of Russian nuclear weapons and to take the corresponding threats seriously.
Moscow will likely continue to stage targeted military alerts directed at specific countries with the aim of steering their policies in the desired direction.
Moscow’s aim is to bring relations with Western Europe into a relatively stable state of Cold War.
This cannot be achieved easily; it will require navigating a series of crises of varying intensity, including, in all likelihood, nuclear ones.
The fact that Trump will remain on the sidelines is already taken for granted in Europe.
But it is highly likely that the Baltic states will not participate in such a blockade either.
If we extend this line of thinking into the future, a distinct Russian principle of non-interference emerges, a sort of Russian-style Monroe Doctrine.
The territories of Ukraine and Belarus (and, in a second phase, the Baltic states, Moldova, and the South Caucasus) are declared off-limits to hostile actions by third countries.
This does not mean that every little provocation will be followed by a nuclear strike on London or Berlin, but it does mean that specific actions by specific European governments will have consequences for them, including military ones, and they will have to take this into account when making any decisions.
Despite the fact that Western Europe is not seeking direct conflict with Russia, it is prepared to participate in the proxy war in Ukraine with complete dedication.
A major deal, a new security architecture with the countries of Europe, is impossible as long as the current political class remains in power there, a class that places supranational interests above national ones.
And for the time being, they are wide-eyed with fear of the Russian bear.
We should expect Russia to continue playing on EU fears, orchestrating military alarms, and seeking to instill in them the reflexes Moscow requires.
Since neither Russia nor the other major European countries wish to attack one another, there is a chance of reducing the confrontation to a Cold War with more or less predictable rules.