The conclusions to date from the course of developments on the Ukrainian front show, with emphasis, that the war in Ukraine will last and the crisis it causes will continue. Great importance is therefore attached to the final outcome of the hostilities. It will be the starting point for future developments.
It is important, therefore, that Ukraine withstand the onslaught of Russia and then be able to challenge the significant territorial gains that Russia is expected to make.
Ukraine is not going to reach peace in the coming years. It is likely that we will have a situation like the one that arose with the integration of Crimea into Russia in 2014 and the predominance of Russian-speaking separatists in the eastern regions, but on a much larger scale.
If Vladimir Putin achieves his strategic goals and occupies eastern and southern Ukraine by completely cutting it off from the Black Sea and uniting the territories he controls with Transnistria, which has seceded from Moldova and is controlled by Russian-speaking people, generalized instability in the heart of Europe.
If it fails to achieve key strategic objectives and confines itself to expanding Russian control over the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, as well as to marginalizing the Ukrainian presence in the Sea of Azov, then the conditions will be created for a war of attrition, which could turn into depth of time at the expense of Russia.
Whatever the scenario, it is clear that the war and the crisis will continue with very serious consequences for the European economy.
Τhe Interesting fact
The interesting thing about the match is that both sides fell out on their basic assessments.
Russian President Vladimir Putin underestimated the Ukrainian military potential and determination against the invader.
The Kremlin considered that in the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine most of the inhabitants would welcome the Russian troops as liberators. This appreciation had also passed to the military units, which, surprised by the reaction of the inhabitants, quickly went from embarrassment to barbarism and war crimes.
It is noteworthy that a significant part of the Russian troops that attacked Ukraine consisted of a kind of armed police, which proved to be completely unsuitable for military operations.
According to the analysis made by the Russian leadership, Kyiv and other urban centers would fall quickly, the fighting would be relatively limited and short-lived, and therefore priority should be given to policing after the victory and consolidation of the occupation.
Vladimir Putin also fell short in assessing the reactions of the US and the EU, which may not always be at the height of the circumstances, but are at a higher level than the Russian president was accustomed to after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. .
Errors in basic estimates are not the sole prerogative of the Russian side. The US and the EU fell out in the calculation of the moves of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his political endurance.
It is characteristic that the Europeans did not expect an aggressive move on the part of Vladimir Putin. The Germans and the French ostentatiously ignored the warnings of the Americans and the British for the military preparation of Russia. They also treated the analyzes of Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia as exaggerated, all of which concluded that a large-scale Russian attack on Ukraine was about to take place.
The next major mistake of the Europeans, this time with the participation of the Americans, was that we were dealing with a war with Putin and not with a war with Russia.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Russians support the election of the country’s president. Even independent opinion polls show an increase in acceptance of Putin’s policy, from 60% before the invasion to more than 80%. The same phenomenon is repeated, the launch of its popularity, which was observed after the secession of Crimea from Ukraine.
Therefore, there is no internal political reason that could lead Putin to abandon his offensive strategy immediately.
It must be preceded by the large increase in the losses of Russian troops, as well as the significant deterioration of the economic and social situation.
All this takes time, while the Russians are trained in the psychology of encirclement and sacrifice for a great cause, which very often is not the right one.
The Dangerous Imperial Plans of Russia
The speeches made by Russian President Vladimir Putin after 2008, when Russia intervened militarily and removed 20% of its territory from Georgia, lead to the conclusion that the Russian President has a dangerous vision of reviving the Soviet, Russian empire. In recent speeches and texts he portrays Ukraine as an artificial construct of the West, which has no right to exist as a state and as a nation.
Consequently, even if there is a temporary cessation of hostilities on the part of Russia, it will be part of a plan to deplete Ukraine with the ultimate goal of its disappearance.
There are several similarities to the way Adolf Hitler treated Czechoslovakia in 1938. He began by protesting the “oppression” of the country’s significant German minority, successfully claiming minority territories, but then disbanded and then disbanded. of Czechoslovakia.
Adolf Hitler was facilitated in his offensive strategy by France and the United Kingdom, which with the Munich Agreement – in the name of the pursuit of peace – intimidated Hitler and accelerated the outbreak of World War II.
The US and the EU are in a similar position today. Will they want to endorse a ceasefire that could be made on Russian terms and prepare for the next phase of Vladimir Putin’s strategy? In the name of peace, will they want to endorse a ceasefire that could be made on Putin’s terms, enabling him to prepare for the next phase of his offensive strategy?
Germany was faced with a serious dilemma
Much will depend on the role that Germany will eventually play. Many analysts are focusing on Orban’s triumphant victory in the Hungarian parliamentary elections and the possibility of vetoing the 27-nation common policy against Russia on behalf of Vladimir Putin, with whom he has a very good working relationship.
But the problem of the EU is much bigger and sounds like Germany. Under Angela Merkel, Germany’s energy dependence on Russia developed dramatically, even after the annexation of Crimea. We had the paradox that Germany would play a leading role in economic sanctions against Russia and at the same time move forward with a much greater development of bilateral cooperation with it.
This is a cross-party choice, considering that in the last government of Angela Merkel, the current Chancellor and Social Democrat chancellor, Soltz, was deputy chancellor and finance minister. After all, the former Social Democrat chancellor of Germany, Schroeder, has been adorning the boards of the Russian energy giants with his presence for years.
It is assumed that after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the German leadership has made a turn in the country’s policy, which includes a large increase in defense spending.
We will have to wait to see if this shift has strategic depth or is more communicative. Chancellor Soltz continues to oppose a European embargo on Russian oil and gas imports, arguing that it could cause a deep recession in the German economy.
The big risk is that Germany will use its large specific weight in the EU. to have a modern Munich. An agreement that would cripple Ukraine territorially and create an illusion of peace, while essentially preparing the next phase of Putin’s offensive strategy.
Observing the statements of the representatives of the German government we can say that they have not yet made their decisions. They use a rather harsh phraseology against Putin, but the measures they agree on do not correspond to the phraseology and the danger they describe.
The Ineffective sanctions
The war has a future and why the sanctions imposed by the US and the EU. to the detriment of Russia are, in general, ineffective.
EU representatives were met with irony by the Indian Foreign Minister when asked to help India implement sanctions effectively and not increase oil imports from Russia.
He reminded them that India covers only 3% of total oil imports from Russia, while the EU. increased oil and gas imports from Russia by 15% in March – after the outbreak of war.
The same issue was raised, in his own way, by the Vice-President of the European Commission for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Borel, speaking in the Plenary Session of the European Parliament on Wednesday, 6 April 2022.
As he characteristically said, we consider that we have done our duty towards Ukraine by deciding to strengthen it with weapons systems worth one billion euros. On the other hand, we have sent Putin from Russia’s attack on Ukraine 35 billion euros for oil and gas imports. This is a “giant difference”.
The new list of sanctions announced by the European Commission envisages a ban on coal imports from Russia, which are worth 4 billion euros a year. The big issue of oil and gas imports, which finances Putin’s war machine, remains.
From the moment that the EU itself does not have much faith in the economic sanctions it applies, it becomes politically and practically impossible for countries such as India and China to cooperate in imposing sanctions or even in preventing their circumvention.
Only 40 countries are cooperating in imposing economic sanctions on Russia on the basis of strategically important restrictions on the implementation of sanctions.
Even if there are effective sanctions against Russia in the near future, it will take many months for the economy, and especially the war industry and its armed forces, to be affected.
The more hesitant the EU is. in the implementation of sanctions, both will increase Russia’s strategic advantage over Ukraine and the distance that separates us from peace in the region.
