further to the question raised "And you really think that EU countries readily jumped on this, instead of preferring to continue enriching themselves with continued Russia trade".
The US (with the EU sitting behind them) played Chess against Russia. The US is White and Russia is Black. The problem is that the US (and EU) and Russia were playing for different stakes.
The US and EU's collective strategy appeared rooted in expanding their influence through institutions like NATO and the EU, while Russia saw such moves as existential threats to its security and sphere of influence. Russia's "all-in" mentality contrasts sharply with the West's calculated but ultimately less existential commitment.
For Russia, losing Ukraine to Western influence was tantamount to geopolitical encirclement, while for the West, success was a matter of strategic advantage rather than survival. Angela Merkel, as Germany’s chancellor, often played a mediating role in EU-Russia relations, balancing sanctions and dialogue. Her pragmatic approach, shaped by Germany’s energy dependence on Russia and a broader European interest in stability, likely helped delay outright confrontation. With Merkel's departure in December 2021, and Olaf Scholz still finding his footing, Europe's ability to act as a counterbalance to US policies was diminished. European leaders, including France’s Macron, attempted diplomacy in the lead-up to the invasion, but their efforts were overshadowed by the larger geopolitical chess match dominated by the US and Russia. The US, with its more global perspective, framed Ukraine’s sovereignty and NATO aspirations as central to its strategy of containing Russia. By contrast, European nations were more divided. Countries like Poland and the Baltics aligned closely with US policies, viewing Russia as an imminent threat. Others, particularly Germany and France, were more cautious due to economic and historical ties to Russia. TLDR: Europe was irrelevant in the conversation between the US and Russia
Many observers believe the US anticipated Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Instead of taking stronger preventive measures, the strategy seemed to focus on managing the fallout and leveraging the invasion to isolate Russia economically and diplomatically. The sanctions regime, while extensive, has not delivered the swift economic collapse of Russia that some Western policymakers may have expected. Instead, it has reinforced Russia's pivot toward non-Western allies like China and India, creating a more multipolar world. The US, being geographically distant and militarily dominant, could afford a high-risk strategy with limited immediate consequences for itself. Europe, however, bore the brunt of the fallout, particularly in terms of energy crises, inflation, and the direct threat to its security architecture. This disparity underscores Europe’s vulnerability and highlights the lack of a unified European geopolitical strategy capable of independently addressing such crises. So to conclude, Without Merkel’s pragmatism and with rising US dominance in shaping the Western response, Europe struggled to articulate an independent position. While the EU supported sanctions and aid to Ukraine, its role was reactive rather than proactive. The war has since become a test of endurance and geopolitical will, with profound consequences for all involved. Alot of missed opportunities for restraint and diplomacy, point to a broader failure to bridge the existential stakes perceived by Russia and the strategic aims of the West.
I have tried to be as comprehensive as possible and again I dont mind if you disagree with my answer, the point is I answered the question.
This post was edited by ferdia on Nov 22 2024 11:56am