In the tough tug of war in between Russia and west, Europe and the United States look beyond the war in Ukraine. At stake is a long resistance struggle aimed at strategically and, above all, economically bending Moscow. We are not aiming for regime change (perhaps someone dreams of it, but it makes little sense), instead we are posing new possible scenarios in which the primary goal is not to coexist and cooperate with Moscow, but to put it in the corner, to make it harmless in a way. However, in “respect” due to the everthreatening nuclear threat.
Russia will also play a fundamental role in this new way of dealing with Russia China, which until now has never wanted to distance itself from Moscow (but it is not certain that this will not happen soon). Going to Russia as a strategic partner in 2010, things have changed completely since February 24th. And to think of a rapprochement at this stage is really difficult. It would be like taking seriously a phrase like this uttered by the Russians: “Sorry, we were joking.”
But let’s see what theEuropean Union. The number one problem is the energy problem: Until 31.12. the primary goal is to reduce it by twothirds dependence on natural gas Russian. It will take an enormous effort, but this is the only way to escape from Moscow’s “blackmail”. By 2030, on the other hand, the even more ambitious goal of ending all gas imports has been set. Energy independence (from Russia) is the ultimate goal of the Old Continent. That this means buying oil and gas from anyone in the world without paying too much attention to the “moral qualities” of the sellers is another matter. In an emergency, you shouldn’t be too picky. Wopke Hoekstra, Dutch Foreign Minister, made it clear during a meeting in Washington at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that the road to eliminating energy dependence on Russia “will take some months, for others it may take years”. And he admonished everyone: “Never make the same mistake again” (too dependent on one country for energy).
Obviously, the effort isn’t just “creative” to find gas and oil to buy around the world and make deals with states or individuals. The problem also lies at the level of the technical infrastructure. For what concern LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) Italy, for example, only has three regasifiers and even if it bought it to meet its needs, it would never be able to treat (regasify) it. We must design and build the regasifiers, and do it as quickly as possible.
On a military level all NATO member countries (and not only) have opted for it increase investments. And at least two candidates (Sweden and Finland) are pushing to join the Atlantic Alliance. Apparently because they think it’s the only shield suitable for their defense. With the accession of these two countries, the strategic balance will change and not just slightly. Moscow could complain about the encirclement again after years of complaining about NATO’s eastward expansion.
Western arms shipments to Ukraine are very likely to continue. After all, it is the only way to resist Kyiv. On the other hand, Moscow’s reaction was not long in coming and intensified the aggression. At the same time, the stationing of NATO troops and assets in the countries along the eastern border closest to the crisis area should continue, also for defense purposes. Ready to intervene in the event of an attack on any of the Alliance’s member countries, should the need ever arise.
How long can a situation like this last? How isolated can Moscow remain? Sooner or later the dialogue will have to be resumed. It certainly seems utopian to speak of peace and armament reduction now, just as the “Basic Law on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security” of 1997 comes from a geological time. Biden does not want to give up and indicates that the challenge will take a long time. He specifically speaks of “longterm struggle“He said it in Poland a few weeks ago. He has urged all allies to remain united.
There is one more interesting variable to consider. What would happen the day Putin decides to end hostilities? Can we trust him at this point, or should we risk renewed aggression, perhaps in a few months or years? At this point, it’s difficult to ignore and trust each other again. And Russia itself is aware that the West will not let it do as it sees fit (as happened in Crimea in 2014). Armament on both sides seems the only possible certainty at this stage.
And the United Nations? Increasingly irrelevant. Russian forces will not stop the offensive against Ukraine and a ceasefire is not expected in the near future, UN Undersecretary for Humanitarian Affairs Martin Griffiths said, but did not rule out a ceasefire could be reached in the coming weeks. “A ceasefire is not in sight now, it could happen in a few weeks.” He then added that he would soon travel to Turkey to discuss possible ways to further the peace process with President Erdogan. Ukraine accepted most of the proposals on humanitarian issues, Griffiths reminded, but Russia did not provide any answers. There is currently no consensus that civilians need to be rescued.