Paris Perspective #26: Russia, NATO and the future of European sovereignty - Serge Stroobants

This edition of Paris Perspective looks at the implications of Russia’s decision to invade a neutral, sovereign European democracy, and at the likely impact of Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine on the future of peace on the continent. 

What is Russian President Vladimir Putin's endgame?

From the war with Georgia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008, to the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the recent suppression of dissent in Belarus and Kazakhstan, the question of President Vladimir Putin's long-term strategy remains open.

Was the decision to invade Ukraine a suddenn reaction to a perceived threat, or part of a well-nurtured plan to reestablish Russia as a global superpower?

Questions have been raised about Putin’s mental state, especially in the wake of the Covid pandemic, which gave many people plenty of spare time to think out their own personal ambitions, dreams and goals. Could the same be said of the man in Moscow?

In the run-up to the 24 February invasion, French president Emmanuel Macron was in the vanguard of European diplomacy with Putin, promising to keep “channels of communication” open with his Russian counterpart.

But was there ever a chance that Macron could have succeeded in mediating with Russia and preventing the invasion, or was it a foregone conclusion that underscored the impotence of the West to engage with Putin?

Lessons from history

For international security consultant Serge Stroobants, we have to consider recent history since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

When we analyse the attitude of the West towards Putin we need to look at the past three decades, and what we allowed the Russian regime to get away with in the realm of international relations.

"For the past four or five years, we have been witnessing a shift from a liberal approach to international relations - where peace is at the heart of economic interconnection. What is at heart of this individual is a more competitive world based on a more offensive approach to international relations," Stroobants asserts. 

"That's an evolution of the past two to three decades. I think the decision to invade Ukraine is something that was always there as an idea that started to crystallise by early September with a new strategic defence pact between the United States and Ukraine."

Western inaction

Indeed, with the permanent support by the European Union and NATO for the self-determination of the Ukrainian people and their political leadership, these are all elements that led to an acceleration of Putin's decision to wage war.

However, there are precedents from the past that could be seen as crucial to Putin's gambit in invading Ukraine, specifically those emanating from the United States. The Obama administration declared the use of chemical weapons in Syria as a line that could not be crossed, yet nothing was done by Washington once chemical weapons were deployed in Idlib province killing dozens of civilians. 

So with Putin's manoeuvres, the West appears to be paying the price for inaction and apathy. 

According to Stroobants, when you look at the narratives that have been used by both President Putin and his foreign ministry to explain why this war is being waged, we hear rhetoric from the Kremlin about Russia's responsibility to protect against the presence of nuclear, bacteriological or chemical weapons.

"We also heard the word 'terrorist' [being used] countering terrorism or a fascist or Nazi regime. A lot of those arguments have also been used in the past 20 to 30 years to start operations in Iraq or in Libya. We're basically getting back the arguments that the West gets a UN Security Council resolution to intervene in countries. And it takes away from the political arguments to refute what Russia is saying today," Stroobants says.

The cost of war

There is of course the question of money to finance the invasion of Ukraine. As Russian troops are being drawn further into a theatre of urban warfare, the financial cost increases exponentially.

Sanctions notwithstanding, Stroobants believes Putin has been looking at Russia's accounts.

"There was about €650 billion ready for him, but with the sanctions that have been imposed, I would say about 80 percent is now frozen somewhere. So he cannot access that anymore.

"After the sanctions have been applied, there is about €30 billion left for him really in cash to use. But what I think we need to look at is the effectiveness of the sanctions on him from a positive perspective, but also from a negative perspective.

"I would say what really struck me in the past weeks, is this self-sanctioning of the private sector, basically disengaging completely from Russia. This has been really hurtful for the economy. 

"But we mostly need to look at the dependency on Russian oil and gas, and coal in Europe. This is still flowing and this exchange is something close to about €700 million a day. So that's also a figure we need to take into account," Stroobants reminds us. 

As the Russian advance and supply trains have been bogged-down over the past 20 days, Russian have relied heavily on missile attacks. If the war continues to be drawn out could the Kremlin resort to a war of attrition?

Again, says the security specialist, we must refer to recent history. "Look at Russian military interventions in Afghanistan in the 80s, but also in Chechnya and in Syria. Basically, this is the worst-case scenario in Ukraine - urban warfare, street by street, house by house.

"For example, we have also looked at spikes in terrorism as a tactic used in an insurgency. We have seen those spikes, after the intervention in Georgia in 2008 and after the taking over of Crimea in 2014," says Stroobants, so we should expect to see a rise in terrorist tactics. 

Macron: Russia's invasion of Ukraine gave NATO an 'electric shock' Paris Perspective #24: On thin ice - Europe, Ukraine and a new Cold War - Marie Dumoulin

Ukraine's relationship with the West 

However, there are accusations of hypocrisy against NATO and Europe when one looks at the downfall of the Libyan dictatorship in 2011 and the appeals from Ukraine to implement a no-fly zone. 

The wave of outrage in the West and promises of support for the people of Ukraine has been moving, but in the face of Russian military aggression this has been compared to being the equivalent of sending “thoughts and prayers” after an automatic rifle massacre in the USA, while refusing to repeal gun laws.

Stroobants maintains that two different things need to be taken on board before going that far. 

We need to look at "the collaboration before the conflict and the support within the conflict", he says. 

"In both cases, before the conflict [we had] the Strategic Defence Cooperation with the US. Ukraine is a NATO partner. There has always been an exchange between NATO and Ukraine," Stroobants says.

"Now in the conflict, there is still the support both from the United States but also members of NATO and the EU individually - in a bilateral way - [delivering] lethal and non lethal and logistic support to Ukraine.

This war, however, will not be won militarily and diplomacy will have to prevail, but at what cost remains to be seen.

No matter what the outcome, with Putin still in charge, many analysts are convinced we are going to enter a new Cold War that will be much worse than the previous one. 

Firstly, says Stroobants, we did not start a new opposition.

"The Ukrainian conflict has been going on for a long time. And it's not only Russia. So we clearly see an evolution of two different approaches to international relations, to the norms and values of international relations," he says.

How power is managed in 2022

There are also the different approaches on how counties in the modern world use their power to maximise their influence on other countries or regions.

"That's something that has emerged. Conflicts have multiplied and there has been a definite decrease in levels of peacefulness worldwide."

New blocs are forming, as can be witnessed at the UN General Assembly -  "the good guys, the bad guys and the non-aligned".

But what is really painful for Europe especially is that the economic interdependence that was a guarantee for peace on the continent over the past three decades has now become a liability in a non-peaceful world.

"From my perspective," says Stroobants, "when you see the evolution of the past decades in the lives of peacefulness, what is happening now is the level of civil unrest going up...not to mention the environment or climate change. 

"We are basically entering a new world order that is multipolar, therefore less stable with more competition. And this competition is now at the heart of international relations. And that's something that we need to adapt to."

So those who think that, after Covid, we will just go back to normal life are wrong

"It's Covid along with a lot of other crises," Stroobants concludes, "that have created a new world to which we need to adapt. Those are the difficulties that we are facing at the moment."

Watch full video here

Written, produced and presented by David Coffey.

Recorded and edited by Vincent Pora.

Serge Stroobants is an international security consultant with the Brussels-based Institute for Economics and Peace