EU-Russia relations could only be described as walking a tightrope of which one slip could lead to certain death. We saw this play out in its extreme in 2014 when the war broke out in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea.
Many saw that time as the lowest moment in the rollercoaster ride of EU-Russia relations since the fall of the Berlin wall. Yet with a potential invasion of Ukraine on the cards it’s clear that relations have hit a new low. So, how exactly will the EU react to the ever-increasing hostile acts of Russia? Will this be another unifying moment for the bloc? And if so, why exactly has the EU been soft on Russia till today?
This article was submitted to the UK Defence Journal by Kay Abdilahi. The author is a communications professional and MSc in Global Affairs with a focus on Russia and China.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
Well, foremost EU failures in response to Russian action can be pinpointed to member state disunity and its institutional make-up. An organisation with 27 member states is bound to have different histories, concerns and interests. But no more so is this fragmentation put on display than in the case of when dealing with Russia.
Central to this split is the somewhat distinct relationships these countries have with Russia, whether that’s historical in the case of Germany and its Ostpolitik, economical in the case Italy whom along with Germany have a trading relationship worth billions with Russia, or strategic in the case of the Netherlands and its ties in the energy industry. These different experiences and views have further split with the push for greater action by Baltic states like Poland, who’ve felt the full weight of Soviet oppression. In turn, this drag on a unified approach has been exploited by the Russian state which has made its divide and conquer method ever more effective. Whether through playing up its bilateral relations and taking on countries one on one or in a more nefarious way with Maskirovka in the form of disinformation campaigns.
Secondly, the institutional makeup of the EU was not constructed for rapid decision making nor the implementation of robust responses in the face of aggression. For example, in the case of Skripal, the poisoning of a dissident, months of deliberation resulted in a mere few sanctions against those closely involved with the assassination. Whilst Russia’s support of Assad’s regime in Syria too took the form of numerous meetings resulting in dither and delay. Unlike Russia, Putin’s at the helm of its military, economic resources and institutions – the lack of hoops to go through in its decision-making means Russia is able to draw its pistol much quicker.
Just like the differences in relations with Russia, member states aren’t willing to place EU foreign policy above their own. Whilst, the EU has taken some steps to remedy this in the Lisbon reforms, via greater powers for the high representative, and the creation of a new EU foreign ministry, European External Action Service (EEAS).
In reality, the reforms haven’t gone far enough, the agency is still very much in its infancy and to make matters worse barriers continue to be upheld by individual member states own foreign policy heads as well as the commissions vigorously protecting its own grip on power. In any case with heads of states playing a more dominant role than foreign ministers, without more direct engagement from them in dealing with Putin, it appears the EU foreign policy machinery is doomed to be defunct.
However, for all the EU’s flaws, a clear unifying front is exactly what Russia got in reaction to the destabilising actions in Ukraine in 2014. The economic sanctions placed on Russia unanimously since then continues to be rolled over even today after Russia’s failure to comply with the Minsk agreement, showing the world the EU has some bite to its bark. Leveraging economic sanctions can once again be a powerful tool as Russian soldiers amass Ukraine’s borders. The recent EU aid package for Ukraine worth $1bn and talks of between EU and US on further economic sanctions targeting Russia’s banking sector could likely be another hit coming down the track.
And where the EU has fallen short in Russia, it’s somewhat made up for in making headways in the Eastern Neighbourhood. Poland, Moldova and Georgia along with other Baltic states have accomplished tremendous amount with the support of EU, from building a stronger economy, creating sturdy democratic foundations and making leaps and bounds in rule of law. Here the UK has an opportunity to carve out a bigger role for itself in the region both economically and in areas of strategic interest like tech. On the defence front, Britain already plays a leading role through NATO’s eFP (Enhanced Forward presence) and on the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), contributing to NATO deterrence and capability efforts in the Baltics.
In short, EU-Russia relations have once again turned frosty. The EU’s disunity and institutional quagmire remains a barrier to a robust response to Russia’s overreach. Developing an effective foreign ministry and responding quicker is the only chance the EU has in coming out on top against an ever more confrontational Russia.
This is the big problem with the EU, it has become more that it was ever designed to be and not really up to the job.
Now I voted to remain in the EU, not because I thought it was a wonderful institution, I don’t, I think at its worst it’s anti democratic, damagingly Neo liberal and risks the creation of a European superstate. But the advantages in trade and being in the centre of the beast to control it was my reason for voting remain ( but my vote was more about a pragmatic view that we needed to tame the tiger before it bit us).
What Really worries me is the fact the EU is incapable of robust, rapid foreign policy but still try’s to act on behave of members states in the area. It has the same internal and structural weaknesses that have been plaguing NATO.
What the west really needs is a very basic worldwide trading block that has some very minimal standards ( if your not a liberal democratic nation you can sod off) but promotes where possible the strengthening of member states industrial and knowledge base. We really need to start removing all financial ties and restricting market access to nations which are in reality not friendly and we should not be supporting the economic expansion and power base ( we are paying for our own eventual suzerainty).
Yes we joined just a trading block once it was calked the EEC, little did we know we had signed up for federal Europe with an unaccountable, undemocratic leadership. I think we are doing ok for global trade now thank you… we not get more of our imports from non-EU countries then the EU.
I do not think you need to build superstates to have strong multinational action. The 2 world wars proved that.
The problem with the EU and Russia is that Germany and France do not wish to lose an export customer by opposing Russia. They also have been comprehensively suborned by their reliance on Russian gas. So of course they cannot act… they will make some tut tut noises and do nothing to seriously harm Russia. Russia knows the is a paper tiger and will treat it accordingly. What Russia does understand is force and the West is nit showing much of that at the moment. Russia is putting the pressure on to see what the West will do. If it judges it can get away with an invasion it will go ahead and ride out the response.
Can’t disagree unfortunately. Hopefully US, UK and other nations showing a very hard line will work, after all a lot of Russia’s looted money is stashed in London. One think we could do is freeze the lot, wait for a change in leadership and then if they are decent offer the money back to a new Russian leadership so it can go back to the population it was stolen from by all Putins friends. Essentially the present Russian leadership and elite are there because they were in a position to Steel all that nations state owned wealth.
And what happens if we force Putin into a corner, he isn’t the kind of character who’s just going to put his hands up and agree its a fair cop.
We need to push him far enough that its just not worth the political pain of him going through with it, without pushing him into a nothing to lose state.
Its a difficult one that’s not helped by the fact European militaries do not have the cohesion and capability to circle Kyiv with 100,00 troops of their own – invited of course.
Putin is exploiting a clear European military weakness.
Peace in our time… it is the lesson of history that weakness not strength encourages dictators.
We already have a multinational military structure it is called NATO. We do not need an EU army to act against Russia.
The questions for me is if Putin invades Ukraine. A large democratic country with 50 million people then who is next? He could try to make demands on Poland via stirring up trouble from Belarus or threaten the Baltic states. All of NATO knows we cant effectively defend the baltic states without a massive military commitment. NATO hasnt got the troops to face Russia on the ground. Too many cutbacks and reaping the supposed peace dividend. We need to reverse cuts. Out back 20,000+ soldiers into the army. Order more Apache Es. Revamp all the challenger2s to 3 standard and fit all of them withtrophy APS.
Scrap Ajax and get CV90 series vehicles instead or just more boxers but with tank destroyer and heavier canon arnaments.
Then order 6 more Poseidon. 36 new tranche 3 Eurofighters and 48 more F35Bs.
Order 3more Wedgetails and get some ground based air defence assets to defend key uk military and civil infrastructure. Ditto ballistic misdile defence too.
Upgun Royal navy with a return to 13 type 26s. A 3 or 4more astute class order yes means expanding submarine production.
I would also get an emergency shipbuilding programme going so batches of 5 type 31/ type 32s are buikt every 3 years until RN back up to 30+ escort warships.
Its all going to cost many billions of £. Yet freedom doesnt come cheap. It has to be guarded and resolutely defended from the likes of Putin and Xi Jing.
It will be interesting to see what emergency urgent operational requirements are pushed through if Putin does invade Ukraine. Which is looking likely.
The sanctions clampdown may actually be to Putin’s benefit as it might force money back to Russia and as well as reduce outflow in the future. Besides which many of the oligarchs seem to have exited Russia with ‘looted’ money so some discomfort may put a smile on some faces back in Russia.
However there are no doubt other places outside this sanction scheme (or even less enforced countries within it) that will welcome the money, so, as you say it will harm us for little actual benefit. Both the US and EU want London’s place in the finance markets to be reduced, this could be another means to that end.
If you target Russian fuel exports then that will be the best way. Russia relies on energy exports for their economy. Stop buying their fuel and gas and stop funding their war machine.
Agreed, but who will supply the gas and oil instead, when the volume fills several pipelines. Probably force prices here up a lot as well which incidentally would increase the prices on other Russia customers not supporting the sanctions. It would be a mess.
Germany rely on Russia, who provides a third of their gas. Germany cannot turn away from Russian supplies. Merkel should not have dismantled their nuclear power industry.
Putins just secured a reserve customer in China. China will gobble up all the cheap gas and oil and coal putin sends their way making Russia Chinas lapdog. Their mutual defence pact likely means Ukraine will get invaded followed very quickly by Taiwan. Military expansionist governments from 2 of the worlds most powerful nations. We are sleepwalking into dangerous times. Distracted, and weakened some would say deliberately by the CV19 pandemic released by China.
Markets in the US have a ton of Russian money, Chicago, Miami, LA. They will suffer greatly as well. This isn’t anti-london.
I agree but almost inevitably the US will implement the rules to the benefit of themselves, as top dog, with the effect of sucking funds out of London to the benefit of New York. Sadly the UK is but a vassal of the US.
How so?
The EEC was the wrong direction to have taken.
Instead, NATO should have been expanded from being just a military alliance to also being a trading bloc.
Hi Seán, I’m not sure about that one, but it’s interesting, I think I know where you are coming from. I will have a think about it and give a full response later. Set me a great thing to cogitate on cheers.
My thoughts are, if we’re prepared to fight to defend another nation as per Article 5, then surely we should be prepared to trade freely with them too?
Not to mention that trade security also enhances our military strength, knowing we can depend on other members for the materials we need to maintain our military capability.
Hi Seán yes agree we should really only have free trade with like minded friendly nations ( trade is another form of warfare, just look at what China is doing with it and how we got the largest empire the world has ever seen). We should still always trade with any nation, but only have free trade with friendly peers. NATO should only contain nations that share our interests and belief systems so the two are interlinked.
Agreed, the West has been short-sighted.
We should have a global bloc of free democratic nations governed by the rule of law and respecting individual rights, freely trading with each other, but all bound by mutual assistance and defence. It’s the only way that the West can counterbalance the hyper-power that China will ultimately become in areas from trade, to soft-power, to military might.
Completely agree, the geopolitical conflict between the liberal democracies and Chinese hegemony is likely to be the force that defines the shape of the 21c. The democracies need to get their acts together, kick neoliberal “ the market is aways right” philosophy out the door and start protecting western means of production, infrastructure and resource access in a co-ordinated way.
And that might be what Brexit leads to …..?
Well we won’t achieve that through the EU, as it’s a protectionist block with structures that are questionable over their democratic status.
Yeh. I voted to remain but am quite content with the way things are turning out. Lisbon was a turning point. If you want to turn the clock back to Charlemagne aka the Franco- German ‘locomotive’, you have to acknowledge your Christian roots; the only social framework with intrinsic stability. The Irish saw the problem and voted against but were bullied into line. They were the canary in the coalmine.
I used to be an enthusiast for the EU but the handling of the introduction of the Euro started to change my mind. Membership of the Euro makes leaving more difficult and bureaucrats and politicians were keen to get as many countries signed up as possible to further solidify the EU. In doing so they ignored the legal criteria that countries had to be converging economically to join. It was such an alarm bell, that working in the City at the time, we implemented systems both for the introduction of the Euro and to handle its collapse.
Sure enough all the countries that should not have been allowed into the Euro ended being at the centre of the European Sovereign Debt Crisis in 2009. Sure the USA Housing Bubble was the trigger that set it off, but it was a massive time bomb waiting to go off. That destroyed so many lives in countries like Greece, Portugal, etc…
Then the EU rushed into expanding further by trying to seduce Ukraine into membership. Had they waited, and Ukraine first been able to join NATO, then maybe 2014 to date might have been avoided, or at least handled better.
I share that perspective. One opinion is that euro was the price Mitterand extracted as the price for German re-unificafion. He was also responsible for the Masonic Louvre glass pyramid. Mitterand is when the rot set in.
Who in the EU is actually pushing for an EU military. The pen pushers in Brussels and France. The pen pushers because it will mean more pen pushers and France because they want the EU to fund their defence industry and the rest of the EU to buy the resulting kit. I might just be cynical but …
France is the foremost supporter of the ‘European Defence Force’ and yes France along with Germany will no doubt force said institution to buy both of its nations kit to equip it. Germany will be supporting in the background but as it wishes to appear peaceful these days will be supporting from a business point of view not a force one.
Cant exactly see them handing out contracts to the US, UK and Russia for supplies somehow!
Why would they ‘force’ members to buy French and German kit ? Does the US ‘force’ members of NATO to buy US kit ?
Not overtly but ‘standardisation’ and ‘interchangeability’ can be usefully deployed.
The US tried to force Turkey to buy their SAM system rather than the Russian one. When it did not comply the US cut it from the F35 programme. This activity is of course counter productive as it forces Turkey towards the Russian camp rather then the NATO one. This is not the only example of the US leaning on other countries to buy its kit.
Very true, the US offer was at mates rates whilst first the Chinese offer and then the Russian’s were at much lower market rates. However the CAATSA rules have been successful at influencing many countries purchase decisions. The US MIC (with BAE US tagging along), is very profitable.
Ok let me rephrase it, the organisation in whatever form it may end up taking will only be ‘allowed’ to purchase equipment from within the EU, ergo being primarily French or German supplied equipment benefiting said member states from allocating funds from within the EU to again boost said members economies.
I cant imagine them moving factories to Greece or Portugal to build equipment to boost those countries financial situations somehow.
So maybe some German afv’s and Italian helos but French everything else and even a big chunk of the above.
I hear Spain might have some brand new pre registered AFV’s going at a great discount against new price.
😂👍
I work for one these European organisations and I can tell you there is zero chance of an EU army ever happening. Only the commission and France (who could then reduce their defence budget) are in favour, there is no appetite for an EU army in any other European capital. Defence and foreign policy are difficult areas for the EC because they need concensus from the European capitals and that never happens. You have to work at the EC to know how truly inept they are in these areas.
Well thats worrying, not! The EU inept? No surprise there then.
But they are now facing the truth of being on the verge of war in Europe again and still they cant seen to pull their figers out of the pie that is called bureaucracy, they will only do something when the EU ‘Elite’ feel theathened and their luxury lifesytle is made uncomfortable.
Ivory towers are just that and they dont feel the pain of those you pretend to represent.
The EU parliment are incapable of making an instant decision due to the bureacracy. When they do it will be to little to late!
Unifying moment for the EU? Unedifying more likely.
The EU is not equipped to respond to security threats from peer-competitors. It isn’t designed to be as it’s not a defence alliance. Hence our own government’s insistent focus on NATO even when we were an EU member.
Yes this is because it trusts the US more then EU countries for military support. And rightly so the EU could not organise a poss up in a brewery…
The only hope for European military action was and is through NATO.
Yet most of the EU member countries are members of NATO. Underlining the fact that the European Union and all its institutions are inextricably linked to NATO and Europe’s collective military defence anyway.
Considering the EU and NATO do formally cooperate (and nobody here has mentioned Turkey either in relation to facing off against Putin’s Russia as part of the alliance, nor how its endless conflict with fellow member Greece has affected NATO up to now) – supposing an EU armed forces ever did come into being, which the UK would be powerless to stop happening anyway now it’s out. Would the UK refuse to fight alongside against some future conflict with Russia purely because it’s the EU defence force? If it’s a combined EU-NATO response, would the UK walk away from NATO too as the hated EU and its commission are involved?
I think you argument misses the point the UK will work within NATO. If the EU chooses to go to war with Russia unilaterally that is up to it. The UK will act as a NATO member. The idea that the EU would tackle Russia outside NATO is fiction. The EU might get involved in other conflict if it had an armed force. The UK would not be obliged to support them, but as a free independent country would decide if it should support or not.
We left the EU to make our own decisions. Not have them forced on us.
Can you imagine all those remainers wanted us to join an EU defence force…a recipe for inaction, overspend and generally a talking shop of non-sense. I’m genuinely very relieved now I voted leave. I don’t care if we are poorer financially as we will be immeasurably richer in so many other ways. I’m actually truly shocked that the EU treats the UK worse than they treat Russia. It does show you that in the EU there really only national self interest of the French and German’s and nothing much else.
Everywhere is poorer financially right now, shipping costs are sky high causing anything that is shipped to be more expensive, energy costs are the highest in living memory, oil has reached the highest numbers in years but of course Brexit caused all of this.
I am not sure if you are being ironic/sarcastic James or if you really think Brexit is the cause of all ills.
Ironic without a doubt.
Glad to hear it.
Germany runs the EU and they must obey Putin. Not sure why though.
Gas. Pure and simple. Germany gets over 30% of its gas supply from Russia.
Since decomissioning their nuclear powerplants following the Fukushima Daichi disaster, Germany now relies on lignite, the most polluting form of coal, for 27% of their power generation needs. They are desperate to wean themselves off the burning of lignite for energy generation.
Despite their admirable advances in renewable energy generation they still need baseload generation capacity which means in the absence of nuclear generation, they need more gas, which is partly why they so urgently need the Nordstream 2 pipeline to go ahead. Hence why they must obey Putin.
I think that is a bit strong. A large proportion of the German people lived under the soviet system and I’m sure they will lay down their lives to avoid that again. They are simply keen keep this conflict diplomatic. They will be more than aware that NATO was there for them and they will (reluctantly) come out to fight if push comes to shove.
We dont need or want “reluctant allies”. Its not very reassuring or encouraging to know the Germans (largest and richest country in Europe) may or may not fully engage in article 5 collective defence clause.
I wonder when Germany will wake up and realise they have been played by Putin? Perhaps when Rusdian tanks have rolled over Ukraine. Attacked the Baltic states. Gone through Poland and are on Germany’s border. Then Germany might just ask for NATO support and expect our youth and children to fight and die for their freedoms.
Er no dont think so. Unless Germany comes out much stronger pro NATO they should be chucked out of the organisation.
Has Germany ever said that “may or may not fully engage in article 5 collective defence clause.” ?
Their actions and words don’t signal much confidence. They should be the premier armor centric army of Europe, but really just barely exist.
It’s like a teenager that doesn’t want to get a job, but still live off the parents.
They sent troops/planes to Lithuania as they are in charge of the NATO battle group based there. There are more tanks on order/being brought back into service.I would say the German armed forces are not in the best of states and there a lack of trust by the German public in them as well which doesn’t help. In terms of spending as measured by GPD there a range of worse offenders including Spain,Canada & The Netherlands amongst others
The EU’s lack of response has more to do with Putin than the EU. Putin insists that he refuses any engagement with Brussels, As a unilateral focussed President he will deal with Ben Wallace, Biden, Liz Truss, or Macron. He will not have anything to do with Brussels eurocrats. That would just antagonise Russia. Brussels relented to this demand.
As a result of this latest crisis in Ukraine, the EU and US are more united than in recent years and fairly clear that they will not intervene militarily in Ukraine and want to resolve this crisis diplomatically. There are different initiatives underway to reach the same objective.
There are ongoing discussions on the details of potential sanctions which is normal since Russia has not yet crossed the red line. We will cross that bridge when we get there, but i believe EU/NATO will all song with one voice in the end.
My 2 cents
What we are seeing in the Ukraine is that the quality of the Russian soldier and his kit is vastly inferior the tanks missiles fly all over the place except to where it’s meant to.
In summary the UK PM has the opportunity to become a statesman OR Run Away? Unlike many others I know that Putin is still scared that if a cruise missile strike is made against the convoy every 5 miles the Russian Army will fall apart. The war will then be conducted within Russia until Putin and his friends are removed. Russia is “THROWING OUT” over a million people from TWO Ukranian Cities a WAR CRIME. Legally that allows a full military response. Germany and France will do nothing. One Submarine has enough Cruise Missiles to push Russia OUT. Then NATO needs to step up. ONLY Turkey/Erdogan has done anything and Putin is currently shocked. Catch them now while Putin is not clear on his route forward
It all started when the Russian plant, Angela Morkel, gained power in Germany.