By Matt Underwood The EU’s resolve to impose new sanctions on Russia, even without US participation, signals a significant shift in the geopolitical landscape. This decision stems from a deep disillusionment with the US’s current stance, perceived as complicity in the conflict in Ukraine. The belief that the US has, under its current leadership, aligned itself with autocratic regimes rather than democratic allies, fuels this determination.
This perceived betrayal has pushed the EU to prioritize its own interests and security. The feeling is that the US’s actions, seen as prioritizing short-term financial gains over long-term strategic alliances, have rendered its involvement unreliable and detrimental. The lack of trust in the US’s commitment to collective action against Russia makes independent EU action necessary.
The argument for proceeding without the US rests on the belief that the EU’s economic and political weight is sufficient to impact Russia even without American support. There’s also the conviction that aligning with a weakened US, seen as self-interested and unreliable, is less beneficial than pursuing a course of action that reflects the EU’s own values and goals. The risk of appearing “toothless” is weighed against the risk of aligning with a US administration that is increasingly viewed as a hindrance to effective action.
However, the EU’s decision is not without challenges. Concerns are raised regarding the potential economic repercussions of acting independently. Some argue that the EU’s reliance on US markets and the mutual economic interdependence could weaken the impact of sanctions without US participation, potentially leaving the EU vulnerable to economic blowback from Russia or a shift of business to non-sanctioning countries.
The possibility of the US profiting from this situation is raised, as businesses sanctioned by the EU but not by the US might migrate to American markets, further strengthening the US economically while weakening the EU’s sanctions. The potential for Russia to leverage its relationships with other countries, such as China, to mitigate the effects of sanctions is another significant concern. The effectiveness of any sanctions package without the US is questioned, particularly given the extensive existing economic connections between the EU and Russia.
Despite these concerns, the perceived lack of trust in the US, fueled by a sense of American political instability and a perceived embrace of transactional, rather than principled, foreign policy, solidifies the EU’s determination to forge its own path. The long-term implications of this are still uncertain, but the underlying sentiment is a belief that the EU’s long-term interests are better served by forging a clear independent line on Russia, regardless of the short-term economic costs or potential political challenges. The EU’s independent action is seen not only as a response to current US foreign policy, but also as a strategic move to assert its own agency and influence on the world stage.
The prevailing attitude suggests the EU believes its long-term interests, security, and reputation require it to proceed with the new sanctions against Russia, even without the US on board. The cost of inaction, and the perception of complicity in allowing Russian aggression, is deemed greater than the potential risks of moving forward alone. This is a calculated risk, representing a major shift in transatlantic relations, one born from disillusionment with the present US administration and a belief in the EU’s capacity for independent action. The hope is to demonstrate a commitment to international norms, even in the face of apparent US disregard, and to safeguard the EU’s own future security and interests.
The situation is further complicated by the perception of a deeply divided and polarized America, one seemingly focused on internal struggles to the detriment of its international relationships. The concern is that this division prevents a coherent and effective response to global challenges, leaving allies uncertain and prompting them to seek alternatives. The EU’s decision to move forward independently can be seen as both a response to this perceived weakness and a statement of its intent to assume a more proactive role in global affairs.