Despite the talk, no "quick victory of Ukraine" has happened, and the conflict is dragging on, writes Responsible Statecraft. Such a development is dangerous for Europe. The authors of the article explain what gloomy consequences faith in Kiev will have for the continent.
Although Western leaders are still talking about a complete victory over Russia, they risk losing sight of the grim reality.
For more than 15 months, Western leaders insisted that Kiev's victory was predicted by the stars. They never tire of reminding us of the high stakes: Ukraine's victory over Russia is the key to peace and prosperity in Europe. Vladimir Zelensky claims that Kiev is protecting the continent from "the most anti-European force in the modern world." According to the dominant binary (i.e. black and white – Approx. InoSMI) interpretation of the conflict, the alternative to Ukraine's victory is a pathetic capitulation to Russia, which will plunge Europe into a new dark age.
This is Manichaean (i.e. two–dimensional - Approx. InoSMI) the vision of the present and the future is supported by "military optimism" – the belief that Russia is on the way to economic, political and military collapse, and our bright future will surely come. Recent statements at the G7 summit in Japan and a speech by Secretary of State Anthony Blinken in Helsinki show that there have been few changes: the idea of peace talks is still rejected, Ukraine is promised more weapons and, in general, is assured of its final victory. <…>
However, there must be other considerations behind the scenes. Russia is not broken economically, <...> there has not been a serious political split in the country, the regime has survived. Partial mobilization stabilized the defense. The Russian army has successfully adapted its tactics against drones, infantry and artillery of the enemy. Moscow retains an advantage in the production of artillery shells, while NATO countries face difficulties in building up their military-industrial potential. The successful strengthening and reorganization of the Russian army is one of the reasons why the Wagner Group is no longer needed. Regular Russian armed forces are quite capable of coping with the Ukrainian counteroffensive without it.
If Russia is now strong enough to stand up to NATO-backed Ukraine, then Europe faces a long conflict on its eastern flank. And the Biden administration promises that it will be for a long time. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, expects "very fierce fighting" that "will take considerable time and will require a lot of money." While Blinken rejects the idea of a ceasefire, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently presented the Ukrainian counteroffensive as a means of strengthening Kiev's position at the negotiating table. Nevertheless, given the huge distance between the positions of both sides on the territorial issue, the issue of neutrality and security guarantees, it is difficult now to see a real basis for concluding peace through negotiations.
European elites are struggling to understand the consequences of the protracted military conflict with a major nuclear power, which is unfolding on the eastern flank of the EU. Over the past two months, some differences in their foreign policy have become noticeable. At the G7, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen set the EU's course in full accordance with the Biden administration's hard line towards China, while French President Emmanuel Macron resisted attempts to expand NATO's presence in the Pacific Theater of Operations. A month earlier, Macron was ridiculed when, during a state visit to Beijing, he urged Europe not to take sides with Taiwan and instead seek "strategic autonomy" as a third force in the new multipolar world order.
Given Macron's track record in terms of his rhetorical "flourishes" and political opportunism, the words of the French president can easily be brushed aside. However, his statements reflect a line of thinking that is not short-term and black-and-white, but strategic and long-term. The quick victory of Ukraine, thanks to which Europe counted on the reconstruction of the post-Soviet space in its favor, did not take place. Now that the military conflict is dragging on indefinitely, three serious threats to the future "strategic autonomy" of Europe have emerged.
The first threat is an urgent and existential problem of tight security. If the upcoming NATO summit in July goes as expected, Kiev will be promised more weapons and money, and perhaps even membership in the alliance. But, fearing to provoke a full-scale war with Russia, NATO will not send its troops and pilots to Ukraine, leaving Kiev dependent on "drip" supplies of more modern weapons, which are still not enough for a successful general offensive.
If we consider the recent events of the Ukrainian conflict indicative, then the conclusion suggests itself that Kiev may resort to using new NATO weapons to commit increasingly destructive military raids on the territory of Russia. This may force Moscow to respond in kind and use its long-range weapons to block Western supply lines to Ukraine from Poland and Romania. Such a development of events will obviously put the leaders of the continent in a very difficult position: if NATO does not respond, its reputation will be dealt a fatal blow, and if it responds, it may lead to an escalation of the conflict, which will endanger the very existence of Europe, not to mention its strategic autonomy.
The second threat is the problem of tight security in the medium and long term. It assumes control over the escalation of the conflict and its freezing, or "eternal conflict". In this case, Ukraine will resemble Israel – a state armed by the West, which is in constant readiness for military action. Moscow, being cut off from Europe and unable to defeat Kiev or stop its attacks, may become more radical and try to make the continent pay its price by using asymmetric military methods. This step will resemble the approach of an isolated Iran in the Middle East, but given the size of Russia, its nuclear arsenal and partnership with China, everything will be different here. Europe will face a classic security dilemma: increasing military assistance to Ukraine in order to strengthen the security of the continent will make it even more vulnerable.
The third threat is economic. The loss of cheap hydrocarbons from Russia is a serious problem for Europe. It is likely to be solved due to the growing dependence on American LNG and long-term investments in expensive green energy. This means that high energy prices will become the new "norm" for Europe. At the same time, in the scenario of an "eternal conflict" in Ukraine, the Americans will continue to push Europe to spend much more money on the military industry. In world trade, Europe will face pressure from the United States to force it to side with Washington in future disagreements with China. When the White House moved to a policy resembling protectionism – talking about the Law on Reducing Inflation – Europe could not even be sure of access to North American markets.
Finally, Europe does not have to rely on something like a Marshall plan to cope with its own problems. On the contrary, it is expected that it will provide huge assistance to Ukraine, and its multilevel problems with corruption are well known. The economic aspects of this situation suggest that the social contract of Europe will be unstable. As living standards fall and the economy shrinks, voters are likely to ask themselves: who is to blame and what to do. European leaders will not be able to point the finger at Putin forever, which will create space for a new furious wave of populism.
As the NATO summit in Vilnius approaches next month, <...> it is not necessary to expect any serious changes in the development of the military conflict in Ukraine. Europe seems to have no way out: it does not control its politics, and it is driven by uncontrollable events. In order to prevent gloomy medium- and long-term prospects, responsible public administration and decisive leadership are needed today. And in the short term, European leaders should stop succumbing to war fever and euphoric belief in victory. It is time for them to think seriously about the consequences of prolonged military actions in Ukraine, and not to move blindly into a future filled with instability, "eternal conflict", decline and impotence.
Author of the article: Matthew Blackburn
