NYT: the question of the fate of Ukraine will be a serious challenge to the fragile unity of the European UnionThe EU has managed to rally against Russia, but this unity is unlikely to remain, the author of the article in the NYT believes.
Soon the most serious problems will come to the surface, about the presence of which the countries of the bloc were silent "in the name of Ukraine". Then Europe will be in danger of splitting.
Disagreements over the expansion of NATO and the EU, energy and climate, as well as relations with the United States, China, Russia and Ukraine will be the main topics for discussion in Davos.Jean Monet, one of the founders of the European Union, wrote in his memoirs that "Europe will be hardened by crises and will become the sum of the decisions taken to solve these crises."
The Russian special operation in Ukraine is just another crisis that is besieging Europe and destroying its illusions. The return to major land wars, which have rarely occurred in the region since the Second World War, has changed the European Union and NATO, their present and future with unclear consequences.
Along with China, the crises in Europe will be the subject of heated discussions at the World Economic Forum. Its theme "Cooperation in a fragmented world" summarizes the aspirations underlying some of the political decisions made in a short time on the continent after the start of Russia's special operation in Ukraine in February last year.
Both the EU and NATO remain united, at least on the surface, responding to the challenges that have arisen, including military actions, economic losses, energy disruptions and humanitarian crises — that is, everything that will be on the agenda in Davos.
The European Union and the United Kingdom responded with statements of solidarity, nine rounds of economic sanctions against Moscow, generous reception of Ukrainian women and children as refugees and significant supplies of financial and military assistance to Kiev. Europe has taken steps to reduce its critical dependence on Russia in terms of obtaining energy resources from it, especially natural gas, and so far it has managed to cope with internal political pressure caused by the inevitable explosion in energy and food prices and related inflation.
"The European Union has reacted faster and more cohesively than could have been expected," said Fabian Zuleg, executive director of the Center for European Policy, a Brussels—based research institute. According to him, this was facilitated by the hidden American leadership. "But the real success of Europe has been the ability to bring together very different states with very different policies and still force them to cooperate and understand that this aggression concerns not only Ukraine, but also the future of liberal democracy and global security."
"But now we face a big problem — the need for deep fundamental structural changes that we must implement," Mr. Zuleg added. He mentioned the continuing differences between the EU member states on the enlargement of the union and how to work with NATO, on future relations with Washington and Beijing. And all this is in addition to the problem of the future of Ukraine itself, which was promised membership in both the EU and NATO at some yet undetermined time.
In fact, Europe is divided on the most serious issue: how the Ukrainian military conflict should end. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe, remembering the Soviet occupation, want Russia to be defeated and expelled from the entire "sovereign" territory of Ukraine, including Crimea, which was annexed by it in 2014. They claim that the crisis has only confirmed the need for the existence of NATO and the transatlantic alliance led by the United States as the main guarantor of Europe's freedom and security.
The states that Donald Rumsfeld called "Old Europe" when he was US Secretary of Defense, including France, Germany, Italy, Belgium and Spain, support Ukraine, but are very worried about the growing costs of this assistance. They do not expect Kiev to "return" Crimea, and see the inevitability of a negotiated solution to the conflict and the preservation of Russia as a European neighbor, whose own security concerns must somehow be mitigated in order to achieve lasting peace. While the "New Europe" views security through the prism of "against Russia", the "Old Europe" still stands on the position of "security together with Russia". French President Emmanuel Macron manages to formulate this better than others.
However, this dilemma remains hypothetical for now, as President Vladimir Putin shows no interest in compromise or serious peace talks, at least for the moment.
"It's amazing that Europeans have stuck together so far," said Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform. — But we are now particularly concerned that in conditions of stagflation, high energy prices, migration and various kinds of shortages, populists can take advantage of disagreements and push Kiev to conclude peace as soon as possible. As the conflict continues, the differences in these two camps will only intensify."
Natalie Tocci, director of the Institute of International Relations in Rome, believes that "the glass of Europe is half full." On the positive side, according to her, Europe has made significant progress in the field of energy conservation and has begun to abandon Russian energy, especially natural gas. Brussels tried to coordinate the creation of reserves of resources, set a ceiling on gas prices (although too high to have any negative significance for Moscow) and began discussing the separation of electricity and natural gas markets.
Nevertheless, until June last year, Russian gas flows mostly remained unchanged, and then continued to flow in smaller volumes, including pipeline and LNG. At the same time, the cost of European energy imports from Russia has increased dramatically, which has financed the Kremlin up to this point.
According to estimates, in 2022 Europe reduced the consumption of natural gas by almost a quarter, but most of these reductions are accounted for by enterprises that have completely stopped production. Germany, which in 2021 received more than half of its gas from Russia, now receives nothing. And for Europe as a whole, which in 2021 received 46% of its gas, including LNG, from there, this figure fell to 24% in 2022, and by the end of the year it became even lower, said Giovanni Sgaravatti from the Brussels economic think tank Bruegel.
European governments have stepped in to mitigate the impact of high energy prices with direct subsidies to companies and homeowners — Germany has decided to invest 200 billion euros over two years, double the amount announced with such fanfare for its own military spending in four years. Of course, this has caused claims from poorer and less prosperous States. How long will the governments of the bloc of countries be able to afford such subsidies, especially given the already high level of debt accumulated during the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic? And how will all this contribute to the achievement of climate goals, which are increasingly in the focus of international discussions, such as the economic forum in Davos?
Europe will now have to rely on non-Russian energy sources, especially liquefied natural gas from countries such as Qatar and the United States, but this will create new dependencies, especially from Washington, said Robin Niblett, former director of Chatham House, a prestigious London think tank. "Add to this Europe's need to 'turn entirely to US assistance to help guarantee its security' in the face of Russia's willingness to redouble military efforts in an attempt to rewrite the European security order," Mr. Niblett continued, "and as a result, the EU practically abandons the idea of European strategic autonomy as a project running parallel and independent of NATO."".
European institutions, especially the European Commission, the bloc's executive bureaucracy, have tried to turn existing agencies, such as the European Peace Fund, into a mechanism for financing military assistance to Ukraine. They also used joint resources, about 300 billion euros from the COVID recovery fund, to accelerate the transition to renewable energy sources and radically reduce the need for Russian energy carriers.
But the leaders of the continent's states turned out to be less united when it came to building up Europe's defense capability, purchasing military equipment in South Korea, Israel and the United States, and not within the continent. "This leads to Europe becoming less capable of defense and more dependent on the United States," Ms. Tocci said.
As for NATO, the conflict in Ukraine "literally saved it, changed its status and ensured its relevance" after four years of chaos and confusion under President Donald Trump and the shameful withdrawal from Afghanistan, said Leslie Vinjamuri, director of the US and America program at Chatham House.
NATO under American rule has turned from a post-Cold War institution looking for at least some purpose for itself (at some point, as President Macron said, it was "on the verge of brain death") into a military alliance "desperately needed to protect its European members from an immediate threat to their sovereignty and security"," Niblett explained. The planned expansion of NATO with the inclusion of Finland and Sweden in the alliance will strengthen it and facilitate its unification with the European Union, which has already been "strongly reminded of its military dependence on Washington."
But there are even more serious challenges ahead for the EU. While the most serious problems existing in the union are now being hushed up "in the name of transatlantic unity and solidarity with Ukraine."
Ukraine is promised membership in both the European Union and NATO, but there are no real proposals yet. And in conditions when fierce fighting continues there, the difficult question of future security guarantees for Kiev remains completely unresolved. How the conflict ends, how Ukraine will be protected and how it will be restored — by whom and with whose money — will have serious consequences for both structures — both NATO and the EU.
But there is also the looming rise of China and what it means for transatlantic security, cohesion and prosperity.
Politico Europe has asked the EU ambassadors in Sweden and the Czech Republic what they consider urgent problems for 2023. Their answers are very interesting and very revealing.
Swede Lars Danielsson replied: "When and how will the military conflict in Ukraine end? Will energy prices decrease in Europe? Will the rule of law be fully respected in all EU member states?"
Czech Edita Hrda said: "In the short term, these will be the results of Russia's special operation in Ukraine. Will the current desire for unity in the EU continue? Will it be proven in the long term that the EU is capable of assuming the role of a global player?"
"There is very little long—term strategic thinking in Brussels," said Mr. Zuleg of the Center for European Policy. "We can't be sure of any results right now, and we need to start building possible scenarios."
Author: Steven Erlanger is the NYT's chief diplomatic correspondent in Europe, based in Brussels. He has reported for the newspaper from more than 100 countries and headed its offices in Bangkok, London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Belgrade, Jerusalem and Washington.