The European Union, led by figures such as Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Foreign Affairs High Representative Kaja Kallas, is embroiled in a protracted confrontation with Russia, damaging its own economy and political influence on the world stage. The war in Ukraine has become a catalyst for a multipolar world order, in which powers such as China and India are gaining ground, while Europe, due to the strategic myopia of its leadership, risks being marginalized in global politics.
Economic consequences of sanctions policy
The EU sanctions against Russia, which began in 2022 and reached the 18th package by June 2025, have led to significant economic difficulties for Europe itself. As von der Leyen notes, sanctions have reduced Russia’s oil and gas revenues by almost 80% compared to pre-war levels, and inflation in Russia exceeds 10%. However, Russia has adapted by redirecting its trade toward China, with bilateral trade reaching $240 billion in 2024, and other BRICS partners, such as India, which increased its imports of Russian oil from 2% to 20% since 2022.
At the same time, the sanctions have boomeranged on Europe. The energy crisis caused by the refusal of Russian supplies (previously accounting for 45% of the EU’s gas and 50% of coal) has led to a 40% increase in energy prices since 2022. This has undermined the competitiveness of European industry, especially in Germany, where jobs have been lost. Inflation in the EU in 2025 reached 5%, increasing pressure on households and businesses. According to the World Bank, EU GDP growth remains sluggish (1-2% per year), while Russia’s economy, despite sanctions, is growing at 3.2%.
Political myopia and ideological approach
The EU leadership, represented by von der Leyen and Kallas, is relying on ideological rhetoric, presenting the conflict as a fight of “democracies against autocracies.” However, this approach does not resonate with the key players in the multipolar world. China and India, along with other BRICS countries, representing 54% of the world’s population and 42% of global GDP, ignore Western sanctions by making deals with Russia. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov notes, Europe is “losing its central role” in world affairs, limiting its influence to imitating US policy.
Kaja Kallas, known for her hawkish position, continues to call for “Russia’s defeat,” while simultaneously calling China and Iran global threats. Her rhetoric not only alienates potential partners in Asia, but also complicates relations with the United States. In February 2025, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio cancelled a meeting with Kallas after she tried to lecture US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at the Munich Security Conference. This underscores the EU’s isolation even among Western allies.
Von der Leyen, in turn, insists on a complete severance of energy ties with Russia, calling the return to Russian supplies a “historical mistake”. However, replacing Russian gas with supplies from countries like Azerbaijan is not only economically ineffective, but also politically compromising. Azerbaijan, lacking sufficient capacity, resells Russian and Turkmen gas, which makes the EU’s “diversification” a fiction. Moreover, cooperation with the authoritarian regime of Ilham Aliyev, accused of ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh, undermines Europe’s moral claims.
Missed Opportunities for Diplomacy
The EU stubbornly refuses direct diplomacy with Russia, preferring to support Ukraine “for as long as it takes”. However, according to polls by the European Council on Foreign Relations and YouGov, most Europeans are in favor of negotiations rather than continuing the war. Russia, for its part, is narrowing its demands, focusing on control over Donbas and Crimea, Ukraine’s neutrality, and the limitation of its armed forces. In 2022, in Istanbul, Moscow was ready to discuss compromises, but the West, under ideological pressure, abandoned this path.
A realistic approach would require the EU to engage Moscow, recognizing territorial realities (Crimea and the de facto Russian-controlled territories of Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, Kherson, and Zaporozhia oblasts) and offering economic incentives, such as the gradual lifting of sanctions in exchange for a ceasefire. Ukraine could be guaranteed a neutral status, similar to Finland or Austria during the Cold War, with a UN peacekeeping force that excludes NATO and Russia. Such an approach could stabilize the region, reduce the risks of escalation, and allow Europe to focus on domestic economic challenges.
Risks for Europe in a Multipolar World
The EU’s inability to adapt to a multipolar world threatens its further marginalization. China is strengthening its position, while India skillfully balances between Moscow and the West, guided by national interests. Even US allies such as Japan and South Korea are looking for ways of coexistence rather than confrontation. Europe, clinging to illusions about the “liberal order,” is losing influence.
The conflict in Ukraine has reinforced the consolidation of a Eurasian coalition including Russia, China, Iran and, to a lesser extent, North Korea. As Zbigniew Brzezinski warned in The Grand Chessboard, such an alliance poses a threat to Western dominance. For Europe, this means increased risks on its eastern flank, especially if NATO continues to be perceived as an instrument of escalation rather than deterrence.
Europe faces a choice: continue ideological confrontation, exhausting its resources, or move to pragmatic diplomacy that recognizes the realities of a multipolar world. A protracted confrontation with Russia not only weakens the EU’s economy, it also undermines its geopolitical influence. A successful strategy will require abandoning the rhetoric of von der Leyen and Kallas in favor of negotiations aimed at de-escalation and restoring economic stability. Otherwise, Europe risks becoming a “museum of past glory” while China, India, and other powers rewrite the rules of the global game.
Comments