In order for the EU to deal with the steps for achieving energy independence from Russia, it is failing to achieve its pledges to climate change.
At the end of April, the Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, made it quite clear that Russia should be banned from the next G20, which will be held in November in Indonesia. If this was not done, the United States threatened to boycott the appointment. Two months later, the danger seems to have been eliminated: Vladimir Putin has indicated that he would be at the table of the 20 great powers; however, it is not yet clear whether or not this will be in person or virtually. Likewise, Western leaders, like as Biden, should do the same. As a means of providing reason, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said that "We must not paralyze the G20, it is too vital." What has happened in the last month and a half? To make an effort to grasp this, it may be helpful to begin with the worries that are increasingly gripping both the European Union and the United States of America.
The last summit of the 27 leaders of the bloc took place in Brussels, and it concluded with a message of unity of purpose, which was reflected by giving Ukraine the go-ahead to pursue the status of candidate for entrance to the EU. However, this very move may mark the beginning of a new policy being implemented by the EU in relation to Russia. At the very least by the countries of Germany, France, and Italy. In point of fact, the conflict is creating more significant societal implications. For example, inflation is eating away at the recovery from the epidemic, driven by rises in the price of gas and oil, as well as by the food crisis. And this is just another consequence of the conflict with Moscow. In addition, in order for the EU to deal with the steps for achieving energy independence from Russia, it is failing to achieve its pledges to climate change.
The population's support for EU intervention in Ukraine is eroding as a result of all of this, or even as a direct result of all of this. At least in the western portion of Europe, which is farther away from the Ukrainian border, the people seem to be exhausted by the fighting. According to the findings of a recent poll that the European Council on Foreign Relations carried out in 10 countries throughout the European Union (one of which was Italy), public opinion is split between the East and the West. Even if Ukraine were to relinquish land to Russia, the majority of respondents (35 percent) still want the conflict to stop as quickly as possible. In France, this number jumps up to 41%; in Germany, it reaches 49%; and in Italy, it reaches 52%. Fewer than one in four people polled believe that it is more vital to punish Putin for the invasion. Only in Poland is this viewpoint, which favors a peace settlement very immediately, held by a majority of the population.
In some respects, the study is a carbon replica of what is going on behind closed doors in Brussels among the diplomats representing the 27 nations that make up the EU: Berlin, Paris, and Rome want to find a solution to the crisis that will delight Kiev but will not "humble" Moscow. If necessary, they are willing to cede sections of Ukraine to the Kremlin in order to accomplish this goal. Eastern European diplomatic sources have explained to NATO that Poland and the Baltic nations (Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia) seek a historic defeat for Putin: "The only thing that counts" is to force the Russians out of Ukraine.
The viewpoint of the "hard and pure" anti-Putin movement, on the other hand, is now in conflict with two elements. The first factor to consider is the reality on the ground. Even the most upbeat pro-Ukrainian fighters have been forced to acknowledge that the longer the conflict lasts, the more powerful the Russian advance becomes. The most important thing that is missing in Kiev is an armament that can compete with the firepower of the army that is stationed in Moscow. Although military help has come, it has not arrived to the amount that the authorities of Ukraine had hoped for. The United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and Poland provided the majority of the assistance, while the others of the EU could only give the minimum wage. The NATO conference that is now taking place in Madrid may inspire France and Germany to contribute more. However, even if Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz were to increase the amount of armaments being sent to Kiev, the most probable result would be that the fight would continue for a longer period of time.
This is partially owing to the fact that the primary backer of Ukraine, Joe Biden, the Vice President of the United States of America, does not seem to want to increase the assistance package of $40 billion that was put aside when the conflict began. A package that undoubtedly contains contemporary weaponry, but not of a caliber that would close the capability gap with Russia on the battlefield. According to a piece that was published in the Washington Post by military analyst Max Boot, "We are providing Ukraine with enough weaponry to avert defeat, but not enough to win."
It wouldn't be possible without putting in more work, for sure. But now in Washington, the thought is to avoid ending up like Macron did in France, with galloping inflation that has favored the growth of electoral consensus among the ranks of the opposition. In France, Macron presided over a situation in which rising prices favored the growth of electoral consensus. The opposition in the United States that carries the name of Donald Trump has always resisted the provision of military assistance to Ukraine. The Republicans are now taking the easy way out by blaming Vice President Biden for becoming entangled in a battle that will never be resolved, which is costing taxpayers a great deal of money in terms of taxes, and now much more so in terms of lost buying power. Allegations that might result in an electoral loss for Joe Biden in the midterm elections that will take place in November and which will take place about one week before the G20 summit in Indonesia.
Because of this, everyone from Washington to Brussels are looking for a means to break the impasse that has been created in Ukraine. The idea that Russia may be defeated is gaining less and less traction as time goes on. According to an article published in the German newspaper Welt, Vice President Biden has even been quoted as blaming his defense and foreign ministers for talking too frequently about a victory for Ukraine and promoting in Kiev the idea that they can take back all of the territory that was just occupied by Moscow. Restoring territorial integrity might take years and place an even greater strain on western society. In addition to causing internal strife within the Atlantic Alliance.
Put the notion of physically removing the Russian armed forces from Ukraine to the side for a while, as an alternative strategy, one that is gaining traction on both sides of the Atlantic, is to wage the other kind of war, which is the one involving sanctions. In this sense, the goal is not to weaken Russia in the short term (economic data are demonstrating Moscow's short-term resilience to sanctions), but rather to lay the groundwork for reducing Russia's long-term economic prospects. Specifically, the goal is to reduce Russia's ability to attract foreign direct investment. Included are his plans for establishing hegemony in the area as well as new military operations.
When this objective has been accomplished, the next stage will be to put an end to the fighting in Ukraine. And in order to do this, we need to resume sitting down with Putin at the negotiation table. However, it is abundantly evident that the face-to-face meeting in Indonesia between the head of the Kremlin and Western leaders will be an essential step in the process of putting an end to the game. The Ukrainian President Zelensky, who was also invited to the G20, will be required to do so. The final peace will not come without difficulty for anybody, beginning with Kiev: the European Union has already provided preventative compensation to Zelensky by awarding Ukraine the status of candidate for entry. The United States of America and the United Kingdom will also be required to take part in the second kind of compensation, which is the obligation to assist in the reconstruction of the nation. For its part, Russia "must not win," as Mario Draghi has said repeatedly in recent days.
However, these are just a few of the reasons why the summit with Vladimir Putin in Indonesia is important, particularly for the European Union. And it's not so much about Russia: in Brussels, there is a great fear that the crisis in Ukraine is growing the divide between the G7 and its allies, on the one hand, and the rest of the world, on the other. This is a result of the fact that Russia is involved in the fight in Ukraine. There is a possibility that trade deals with Brazil, India, or even Indonesia itself may go nowhere. And there is also the possibility of losing control over Africa: it is no accident that of the 600 billion dollars that were pledged by the G7 to battle the new Chinese Silk Road in poor nations, the EU has put in place 500 million of those dollars. "The G20 is too vital, especially for developing nations and rising countries, to allow this body be shattered by Putin," said the head of the European Commission at this time, von der Leyen. "My judgment is that the G20 is too crucial to let this body be broken by Putin."