By Tom Fowdy
When the European Union first announced sanctions against Russia in the midst of its invasion of Ukraine, President of the Commission Ursula Von Der Leyen triumphantly declared on Twitter that the measures would cripple Moscow's global experts and undermine Putin's war machine. It is never of course an easy decision to make sanctions, yet it was assumed by policymakers that they could quickly stifle Russia's capabilities whilst only receiving minimal backlash for themselves. It would be a short-term price worth paying for peace in Ukraine in their favor.
Yet six months later those assessments have not aged well. Russia has made record revenues in the export of oil and natural gas, whilst European countries face a growing economic crisis triggered by soaring energy costs which is likely to become a critical situation by winter. In Germany, public disapproval of Chancellor Scholz has risen to a record high, with 62% of people surveyed dissatisfied with his work, and only a quarter being satisfied. Across the continent, energy costs are also forcing firms to shut down from Italy to Slovakia, which according to Bloomberg has crippled the European metals industry. Across the North Sea, Britain is being hit with waves and waves of strikes as dissatisfaction grows over falling incomes.
Russia may have suffered from a mass exodus of western businesses which will cause short-term pain to the economy, yet it has not been dealt a crippling blow which completely undermines its ability to function. None of this was in the script when the war started, and in conjunction with this, the European Union's strength and political will to resist Russia is cracking. It has been widely noted that most EU countries are no longer sending military aid to Ukraine at this time. Whilst of course Kyiv will continue to receive the lion's share from Britain and the US, the most committed parties to attempting to push Putin to a maximalist defeat, the touted "unity" of the western coalition against him, is breaking.
When looked at in this light, why would Russia, as often hoped by the western media, be desperate? An early narrative of the war concerned framing Putin as having "miscalculated", facing larger costs and resistance than expected in Ukraine. In conjunction with this, the efforts of Europe to express a commitment to diversification from Russian energy were also vastly overstated and an obvious act of "all style and no substance"- such a critical dependency cannot be reversed on a whim not least when the concept of supply is weighted upon the creation of critical infrastructure. Natural gas cannot be conjured on a whim. This has put time and money on Russia's side.
It is probably given these circumstances that Putin has not made the strategic decision to formally escalate the conflict and push for a quicker and more decisive victory, but to keep it as a "slow burner" which gradually grinds down Ukraine. Any attempt to use heavier weapons against the country, to level Kyiv, or to issue a formal mobilization and declaration of war, may only sharpen Europe's resolve to more deeply involve itself, which is what Ukraine is constantly seeking to achieve, as demonstrated by the recent power plant phenomenon. Seeing Europe's struggles, and with winter upcoming and an even greater demand for fuel on the horizon, Putin has no reason whatsoever to push things further at this point in time.
Despite the one-sided media coverage after all, things are not good for Ukraine. They pledged to liberate the entire south and Kherson oblast by September. A flick back just a month ago to headlines from the New York Times and the BBC promised a huge offensive on the horizon. The reality is one month on Ukraine has failed to make any progress on this front whatsoever, revealing their underlying weaknesses and discrediting the done-to-death "HIMARS" gamechanger, meaning where exactly do they go for here? Especially as recent reports show Russia has started to grind back territory on this front.
In conclusion, the perfect coalition which was praised as an exemplary act of western unity is starting to break up. Europe is not quitting the conflict, but is fizzling out. Russia is well aware that once this conflict is finished, they can seek a diplomatic reproachment with the EU in a way which undercuts the Anglosphere countries, eying a long-term removal of some sanctions. When viewed in this light, it is obvious who is desperate to bring the war to a conclusion. This ultimately makes it a conflict of attrition and strategic patience, and one should not underestimate Russia's commitment to its long-term goals.
The author is a well-seasoned writer and analyst with a large portfolio related to China topics, especially in the field of politics, international relations and more. He graduated with an Msc. in Chinese Studies from Oxford University in 2018.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | How North Korea's era of alienation came to an end
Comment