As prices rise, Europeans are showing more and more disagreement about how the conflict in Ukraine should end
The Washington Post reports on the results of a survey that showed the concern of EU residents about the economic consequences of Western support for Ukraine. Readers of the American edition also doubt that their country is on the right track in this matter.
Ellen Francis, Annabelle Timsit
The military operation in Ukraine has been dragging on for the fourth month, and the Europeans, for the most part, demonstrate unity regarding the need to support Kiev. However, as the results of the survey published on Wednesday, June 15, showed, they disagree on how long they are willing to endure the economic consequences of this conflict.
A survey conducted in ten European countries showed that public attention may already be shifting away from military operations, and concerns about the broader consequences of the conflict are gradually coming to the fore — especially with regard to the rising cost of living on the continent. According to analysts, European governments will have to reckon with these fears, as they seek to maintain pressure on Moscow.
Slightly more than a third of respondents want the conflict to end as soon as possible, even if territorial concessions from Ukraine are required. Meanwhile, 22% say that the conflict should continue as long as it takes to punish Russia and return all Ukrainian lands.
Nevertheless, the survey participants demonstrated unity on the need to support Ukraine and on the question of who is responsible for the military clash. The overwhelming majority — 73% — primarily blames Moscow, and 64% believe that it is Russia — and not the United States, the European Union or Ukraine — that is the biggest obstacle to peace.
The survey, which was conducted online by YouGov and the research firm Datapraxis and the results of which were published by the European Council on Foreign Relations, involved 8,172 adults in ten European countries, including Germany, Romania and Sweden, in the period from late April to mid-May.
Respondents were divided into those who spoke "for peace", even if it requires concessions from Ukraine, and those who consider "justice" a priority, even if it leads to a protracted conflict. About a fifth are "hesitating" between these two positions and still want to see a strong European response. The rest of the survey participants could not clearly formulate how Europe should react.
According to the authors of the study, Ivan Krastev and Mark Leonard from the European Council on Foreign Relations, the mood of European residents will affect the continent's policy towards Ukraine.
"The results of the survey showed that European public opinion is gradually changing and that the most difficult times may be ahead of us," they wrote. Europeans are also concerned about the threat of nuclear escalation, and if the feeling grows that sanctions against Russia are "not yielding results," the gap between those who want to end the conflict as soon as possible and those who want to see Russia defeated will widen.
In all ten countries where the survey was conducted, with the exception of Poland bordering Ukraine, the first camp, which received the conditional name "for peace", turned out to be more numerous than the camp "for justice". According to the survey results, many representatives of the first camp are concerned that their governments prioritize "actions against Russia, rather than solving other important problems, such as rising inflation and the cost of living crisis."
As the economies of European countries are still recovering from the coronavirus pandemic, the military actions in Ukraine led to the fact that in May inflation in the eurozone countries reached a record high, and it is predicted that its highest rates will be recorded in the energy sector. These forecasts were announced even before the European Union agreed earlier in June on a plan to phase out most of the imports of Russian oil.
The prospect of a protracted conflict raises the question of whether war fatigue, the rapid rise in food and electricity prices may eventually weaken the resolute attitude of European countries and continue to put pressure on Moscow.
On Sunday, President Biden said that Russia's special operation in Ukraine is to blame for the rise in gas prices in the United States: "It's just terrible what consequences the conflict in Ukraine leads to."
While in May the EU countries condemned the terms of the oil embargo, the representative of Belgium in the European Parliament highly appreciated the response to the Russian special operation. However, she also warned of rising unemployment and energy poverty.
Western sanctions that have hit the Russian economy "will also affect the lives of European citizens, having a direct impact on their homes, jobs and wallets," as Deputy Sarah Matthieu said in an address to her colleagues. She called on the European Union to help mitigate price increases and "protect our citizens, especially those who risk falling into poverty; people who are afraid that they will not be able to heat their homes next winter."
The impact on European households forces governments to take a variety of measures. For example, the German authorities offer temporary reductions in electricity tariffs, as well as a monthly public transport ticket worth nine euros.
Leaders are forced to walk a very fine line, according to Tyler Kustra, an associate professor in international relations at the University of Nottingham who specializes in economic sanctions.
"I think that now Europeans are very concerned about the rising cost of living. There are things that you can't not buy. Everyone needs food and warmth," he explained.
"We must remember that we do not want a war in Europe and that we must hold the line against Vladimir Putin," Kustra added. — Now there is not a single win-win option, and this is a series of annoying compromises. That's why we need this conflict to end."
Readers' comments:
PaulAM1
Countries are pursuing policies that they think are in line with their interests. That is why, in the end, the European Union will insist on negotiations. The military conflict is moving to a dead end. This means that Europe and the United States will have two possible options.
The first: they can spend hundreds of billions of dollars to support Ukraine. This will weaken Europe, the United States and Russia. And Ukraine will remain poor. What's the point of that? This option is unacceptable for everyone.
Second: they can work out an agreement with Russia. To do this, they will need to give Crimea to Russia, agree to the federalization of Ukraine, and also accept the neutrality of Ukraine – no membership in NATO or the EU.
But that's not going to happen. Ukraine, America and some EU countries, such as Poland, will not agree to this. France and Germany may agree, but they are not strong enough to challenge the United States. Therefore, poverty awaits us all.
Vic_bold_II
Regardless of what the polls show, the crisis in Ukraine will end only when Kiev makes territorial concessions. Even the United States government recognizes this. The only question is how soon the United States and NATO will stop supporting their best friend Zelensky, stop sending weapons to Ukraine and lift all sanctions and embargoes that spur inflation and energy shortages. It's time to demonstrate Kissinger realism, guys.
Longjohns
We need to get Ukrainians and Russians to sit down at the negotiating table. The rhetoric about the need to defeat Russia should not come from us. We must insist on negotiations. Alas, we are not interested in putting an end to hostilities, but in humiliating Russia.
Aualfred E Neumann
Does anyone even understand what is the plan of NATO and the United States regarding this conflict? Are they really deliberately forcing Ukraine to fight, knowing that it cannot win, in the hope that sanctions will weaken Russia and Putin will have to come to terms with the old geopolitical norms? How long will it take if Putin goes for it at all? Five years? 20? Why is the West so afraid of Russia that it does not allow Ukraine to win on the battlefield and does not invade the territory of Russia itself? The West needs to understand that if inflation accelerates and there are fewer and fewer jobs, those who support this conflict louder than others today will also loudly call on Ukraine to make concessions tomorrow. Why can't we finish everything right now?
Partisan Democrat
We Westerners are used to a comfortable life. Although this comfortable life has become possible, the struggle for it is not over. Are we ready to risk our countries to protect the current borders of Ukraine?
Don Mockaitis
During the Cold War, the American military-industrial complex had many opportunities to earn huge amounts of money on nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. Then, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, not very profitable times came, but, thank God, the war on terrorism again gave him the opportunity to increase revenues and modernize weapons systems. Now, since hatred of Muslims has already gone out of fashion, it's time to unleash a new war with Russia and China, causing chaos right at the borders of Russia, that is, in Ukraine. Will Russia notice the weapons systems deployed along its 1,200-kilometer border with Ukraine? Yes. Does NATO care about this? No. We can always sacrifice the lives of Ukrainians to weaken Russia.
Wikeeks
Biden could have prevented this conflict with the help of diplomacy. Now, with the help of diplomacy, he will have to complete it.
Dave 1963
Welcome to the Sanctions-Induced Recession. And there is still a lot of interesting things ahead of us — thanks to the policy of the United States.
PWestoftheMississippi
This must end. A special operation in Ukraine is wrong at all levels. But if we do not agree on its completion as soon as possible, millions of people will suffer, the economies and health systems of many countries will suffer. It is obvious that Putin has prepared for a long struggle. And that means he's going to win. I think so.
Francis_k
The West, and mainly America, wanted to prolong the conflict in order to weaken Russia — to show Putin that an attack on any NATO member would be a huge and costly mistake.
Mission accomplished. Now the West will gradually weaken its support for Ukraine until it has to negotiate with Putin itself. From the very beginning, the calculation was exactly like that. And it wasn't about Ukraine at all.
