‘Not in danger of falling yet, but in trouble’

The speech of Vladimir Putin last Wednesday morning shook Brussels and satisfied, probably, in equal parts. The Ukrainian journalist sums it up very well anna korbut: the Russian autocrat “is not yet in danger of falling, but he is involved in internal problems, with those who demand more war from him and with those who do not understand it”.

On the one hand, Putin’s words provoked the European institutions because they confirmed a sad prediction by the minister Jose Manuel Albaresdays before, in a conversation with this newspaper: “Putin has not given a single sign of bringing the end of the war closer, we must think of a long-term conflict“. Not in vain, he announced a forced mobilization of 300,000 reservists to continue with his war campaign.

But on the other hand, this speech also pleased the different leaders of the European Union because the announcements made by the tenant of the Kremlin showed his weakness: “The sanctions are working, our strategy is correct, we must persevere“Indeed, only the West’s military, financial and logistical support for kyiv has allowed its highly motivated troops to push the Russians back to almost pre-war positions.

[Así cambiará la guerra la llegada de los 300.000 soldados rusos]

Because another of the milestones that Putin marked on Wednesday was the call for referendums in the Donbas regions to seek a legal excuse with which to annex them de facto to Russia. And beyond the fact that these referendums are described as “fake” by European leaders like Pedro Sanchezand that his own Joe Biden have warned that “they will never be legitimized by the international community”the truth is that those regions were already controlled by Moscow before February 24.

“Putin’s speech is a flight forward”, diagnoses Jose Ramon Bauza, spokesperson for international affairs for the Renew Liberals in the European Parliament. “It is proof that the Russian narrative is, as we all know, propaganda.”

But Putin added a third element of “bragging” to that propaganda, as the political scientist and researcher describes it. james sherr: the commitment to “use all means” at its disposal to defend “Mother Russia”.

In other words, a combination of the recurring nuclear threat with the warning that if Donetsk, Luhansk and Zaporizhia the votes agree with him, there will be a change of third in this conflict, and it will no longer be an invasion, but a defensive war, in which the Russian army – increased by 300,000 more soldiers – would be defending its own self territory of an aggression by Ukrainian troops “supported by the collective West”, in Putin’s terminology.

“It’s bragging because the Russians are masters at instilling fear,” Sherr abounded in a panel convened by Faes this week, “but above all they are masters at detecting fear… and so far, both the EU and the United States and the rest of allies have maintained their firmness regardless of bluster.

We must not forget, for example, that Putin already took the nuclear threat out for a walk when Sweden and Finland submitted their application to join NATOas a response to the invasion of Ukraine, abandoning 70 years of no official alignment in any bloc.

[La gran amenaza de Putin a Occidente: los 8 misiles nucleares que pueden arrasar países enteros]

For this reason, the key, in the opinion of the pro-European experts consulted, is to maintain the unity of the EU. Joseph Borrell he has been able to see it, apparently, by convening an urgent council of foreign ministers a few hours after the announcement of “a substantial escalation” in the war.

And the Twenty-seven have responded, once again, as one by approving the seventh package of sanctions on the Putin regime… practically one per month since the beginning of the invasion. “We will continue to support Ukraine in its legitimate right to defense as long as it takes,” he said.

possible scenarios

Today, European sources acknowledge that “there is a lot of regret” in the attitude maintained by the EU and, above all, by Germany for years. A senior German official in Brussels, who prefers to remain anonymous, admits that “we should have listened to Poland beforewhich had been warning for years that Russia was not a reliable partner” neither politically nor commercially.

Those doubts, that slowness in European decisions, undermine its credibility. Diplomatic sources clarify that “in any future scenario, the final referee will be the United States“. And those scenarios are only three: a victorious Ukraine, a long tie resolved with a negotiation, and a victorious Russia.

“The first scenario is the desirable one,” adds a senior official, an expert in European affairs. “kyiv counter-offensive fuels hope and gives incentives to maintain European unity”.

The second is in which this diplomat understands that “the EU will not have been given time to have a single voice”, because in his opinion, the war will still last, “but it won’t make it to the next US electionfor example.” And hence he assumes that the Biden Administration will have the last word.

And the third, Putin’s victory? “That is what you have to avoid, because he is lost, but as long as he continues to lead the operations will try everything in his power“.

But now, the satrap faces the rebellion of young people who begin to see the war as an intimate threat, because they do not want to be mobilized; that of the oligarchs, affected in their businesses by the sanctions; and that of the regime’s most militaristic bigwigs, who demand immediate results.

“We must be satisfied”concludes this expert, “but stay alert. Because the war has many fronts: the military, now balanced at most; the economic one, which will make us suffer; and the one with the story, in which Putin wins“. And it is that, EU sources confirm, the West has been detecting disaffection in third countries. “You only have to look at the new Latin American governmentswho play the old Yankee anti-imperialist rhetoric”.

the next test

In any case, now the challenge is maintain unity in Europe, in view of the “harsh winter” that is approaching the international community and, especially, the countries “highly dependent” on fossil fuels from Russia. Among them, there are three specific -Germany, Italy and Hungary- that stand out, as explained Francisco Millanmember of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament.

“It has cost a lot to maintain unity, we are 27 different countries,” says Millán, “and Solidarity between us is substantialso that citizens do not suffer and governments do not choose to choose their own positions, contradictory to this spirit”.

Italy holds elections this Sunday, and in them the main favorite is Giorgia Meloni, leader of Fratelli d’Italia, a neo-fascist party, fervently nationalist and, therefore, Eurosceptic when it comes to sovereignty. The advantage, according to European sources, is that he will not be able to govern without the support of Forza Italia, a party that has clearly veered towards the center right since Silvio Berlusconi He lost power years ago.

The Hungary of Viktor Orban maintained ambiguous positions before the war, challenging the common position of the EU, belligerent with Putin’s Russia. But since the invasion he has fulfilled his role as a member of the community club. However, the recent confirmation of its sanctions process that conditions the collection of European funds to the reversal of certain laws that the EU considers to threaten fundamental freedoms, can give you incentives to break the unit.

In addition, being reluctant to accept immigrants and refugees, it is the second country in the Union that hosts the most refugees from Ukraine at the moment, with 1.2 million of people. just behind the 5.5 million hosted by Polandaccording to official UNHCR data.

That, and the German announcement to offer shelter to young “deserters” who reject the military mobilization decreed by Putin, leads us to the next decision that the EU Member States will have to make. A few weeks ago, the EU approved a visa ban on Russian citizens, but Olaf Scholz has already proclaimed that Germany will accept “with open arms” those who do not want to swell the invading infantry.

“Polls continue to say that 80% of the Russian population supports the war, although they also point out that 80% disapprove of the decree of forced mobilization,” he explains. Jade McGlynn, Senior Research Fellow at the Monterey Institute for Russian Studies and PhD from the University of Oxford. “And it is that the Russian people do not see this conflict as something existential, and does not want to shed his own blood; but he has bought the identity story.