The impacts of the Russian war of aggression on our world, the EU and us

An interview with Dr. Carolin Rüger, Research Associate at the Chair of International Relations and European Studies at Universität Würzburg.

"Russia's aggression is not only an attack on Ukraine, but also an attack on our European and international order."
Prof. Dr. Norbert Lammert, Chair of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation

On 24.02.2022, the lives of everyone stand still for a moment. Headline after headline spreads across the world. One report more shocking than the next. Within just a few hours, hundreds of people die. Bomb after bomb strikes Ukraine. A country that, with its area of approximately 603,000 km², ranks among the largest states, whose borders lie entirely in Europe. Europe – not the European Union (EU).

This distinction must first be made. For if Ukraine were already part of the EU, would there ever have been a war with Russia? I want to explore this question in a conversation with EU expert Dr. Carolin Rüger. She is a Research Associate at the Chair of International Relations and European Studies at Universität Würzburg.

Let us begin with the facts – What are the backgrounds of this war?

Until 1991, Ukraine is one of the 15 Soviet republics and thus part of the former Soviet Union. After the collapse of this vast territory, the now semi-presidential republic gains its sovereignty. However, this is never fully recognised, particularly by Russia. As early as 2014, the annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea takes place. Through the annexation, this part of Ukraine is forced to become part of Russian state territory. Russia clearly violates international law here, as well as the Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty extended in 2008, which was supposed to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity. The conflict has persisted since then. It is reinforced not least by the desire of the Ukrainian civilian population to become part of the EU, which could now finally be fulfilled. During the Maidan protests in 2013, several hundred thousand people gather to demonstrate for freedom and democracy. Since then, Ukrainian troops have fought against the "separatists" equipped by Russia. Other reasons for the escalation of the conflict
include Russian President Putin's suspicion that a genocide of the Russian minority is being committed in eastern Ukraine. There is no evidence for this. The expansion of the NATO military alliance is also a thorn in Putin's side. He demands that no further eastern states be admitted. This demand is rejected by NATO by referring to the right of peoples to self-determination. In spring 2021, Russia then massively ramps up its military. The reason for this is the "denazification" and "demilitarisation" of Ukraine. For the current government under President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is "fascist" and must be overthrown, according to Putin. Just one year later comes the second obvious violation of
international law through the war of aggression against Ukraine initiated by Russia. A war of aggression that has already driven many people to flee or cost them their lives.

What role does the European Union now play in this conflict?

Even before Russia's actual invasion, the EU regularly calls for de-escalation. With the annexation of Crimea, sanctions are already imposed that restrict relations with Russia. But with Russia's actual war of aggression, the EU, like every other actor in international relations, was caught off guard. For except for the Central and Eastern European states of the EU, no one would have expected Putin to actually take this step. This one step too far. The attack on all of Ukraine. But unlike usual, the EU responds with concrete solutions instead of descending into chaos – according to former Finnish Prime Minister Alexander Stubb. The EU has unconditionally sided with
Ukraine and taken measures at various levels. In addition to the economic sanctions emphasised by the media, it provides humanitarian and financial aid and actively works on the reception of refugees. Even if these
measures appear almost invisible at first glance, since they do not help to end the war overnight, they serve as a walking aid for Ukraine on the path towards peace. An enormously significant step in this regard is also Ukraine's admission to the circle of EU accession candidates, which was decided at the EU summit at the end of June this year. Negotiations on accession have already begun and are currently proceeding at full speed. For many political scientists, it is remarkable how united the EU has been in its response and stance since the beginning of the war. Perhaps this is that voice of the EU that is so often spoken of? Admittedly, this unified voice has lost something in tone and harmony when more far-reaching sanctions, such as those in the energy sector, were discussed. Nevertheless, for example, surveys in Germany show that a large part of the population would still be willing to pay more for energy from alternative sources and other countries rather than continue to obtain energy from Russian sources. And this despite the fact that the EU itself is suffering enormously from the effects of the war. After all, the war affects all policy areas. These include foreign and security policy, enlargement policy, asylum and migration policy, trade agreements, energy policy, health policy, agricultural policy and not least economic policy with the question of how to deal with global actors of this size in the future. How can dependencies on countries like Russia or China be regulated? Do we even want to continue trading with authoritarian actors? Questions upon questions that must be clarified incidentally. One could almost speak of a setback for the development towards a world society, as also
EU expert Rüger does. On the European continent, we are moving away from a cooperative security order towards a conflict-oriented one. An order in which any kind of dependencies must be questioned and thought through in the future. The idea of "change through trade" is not dead, but is heavily negatively burdened. Yet the EU is actually considered a strong advocate of (rules-based) multilateralism. The utopia of a world society certainly remains, but we
must not fool ourselves. In future, the question arises as to whether the EU wants to act in world politics only within a "club of democracies". But can all the major challenges of our time be effectively addressed in this way? Probably not.

Speaking of the world – What does the war mean for the world, the EU and us?

For not all states in this world does this war seem to be a "turning point". A disruptive moment, as we perceive it. Particularly for states that are not actively involved through shared borders, let alone sharing the same continent, everyday life has hardly changed. Of course, global players like the USA are involved, but in a different way than, for example, Germany, which has already taken in more than 610,000 people by the end of April (Source: Statista). What lesson do we as a world society draw from this? Will the law of the strongest prevail or lose significance? Initially, it was expected that the supporting voice of the West would also spread in the Global South, but this region is being heavily influenced by Russia. On the one hand, through Russia's public diplomacy, a form of various government-sponsored efforts to establish direct communication with foreign publics (Source: Britannica Dictionary). For example, some African states are being told that supply shortages of foodstuffs such as wheat are occurring due to economic sanctions by the West. However, the West has not imposed sanctions on grain deliveries from Ukraine, Europe's "breadbasket". Quite the opposite: the West itself is suffering enormously from the effects of the war. Furthermore, Russia is increasingly putting itself in a victim role – "encircled" by NATO, the war was unavoidable, so it claims. NATO itself has acted prudently since the start of the war – held back in order not to provoke the Russian government further. The heavily state-controlled media system in Russia makes opposing voices almost impossible. So the question arises: can Russia ever breathe the spirit of democracy? Or are we facing a hopeless case? As for NATO, Putin is now more of a "salesman of NATO", for as a result of the military war of aggression, more and more states want to be part of
the West's military alliance. At least here, Putin has failed to achieve his goal.

For us, it means: rethinking. Rethinking our understanding of neighbourhood, peace and sovereignty. Rethinking on the subject of military force, which many instinctively reject. But this defensive reflex is not quite right, according to expert Rüger as well. For without the supporting weapons deliveries, the war would have quickly ended in Russia's favour and Ukraine would have lost everything – its state, its sovereignty and many lives. One would then speak of a dictated peace, which is not remotely comparable to positive peace. We unfortunately had to recognise that the peace negotiations so far have been little successful. But the blame does not lie solely with the West doing too little, or the EU
itself. Putin has pursued and implemented his own agenda from the start. Russia began the war. How it continues is anyone's guess. But one thing is clear: Russia must not and will not emerge as the winner of this war if we as
a world society work towards building a world order in which not the law of the strongest counts, but the strength of the law.

"Ukraine needs peace, Europe needs peace and the world needs peace."
Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy

Mirjam Mähler