Running head: EU AND NATO INVOLVEMENT IN RUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN CONFLICT
EU and NATO Involvement in Russian-Ukrainian Conflict
Sarah Shay
Institutional Affiliations
EU AND NATO INVOLVEMENT IN RUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN CONFLICT
2
EU and NATO involvement in Russian-Ukrainian Conflict
Introduction
International organization proliferation is a popular trend of the 21st Century due to the
emergence of complex and highly dynamic threats. The process of creating international
organizations started immediately after World War II to promote global peace. The International
Monetary Fund and United Nations (UN) are crucial international organizations that have
consistently depicted their commitment to the promotion of international unity and cohesion.
However, some international organizations have been dragged into new global socio-economic
and political conflicts. The European Union (EU) and the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) have expanded significantly in the early 21st century s because of their involvement in
emerging global political and economic conflicts (Machida, 2009). Notably, the participation of
the EU and NATO in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict depicts the transformation of the roles of
international organizations in international politics.
Russian-Ukrainian Conflict
The Russian invasion and occupation of the Crimea region in 2014 marked the beginning
of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. The attack occurred at the peak of Ukrainian political tension
that was characterized by the violent confrontation between protesters and national internal
security forces. The protests started in 2013, intending to oppose the President’s decision to
prevent the increased integration of Ukraine with the European Union. Viktor Yanukovych had a
strong political relationship with the Russian government during his service as the President of
Ukraine between 2010 and 2014. Yanukovych was overthrown and exiled to Russia in February
2014, following the political tension in his country (Blackwill & Sestanovich, 2020).
Russia defended its invasion of the Crimean region of Ukraine using political and cultural
reasons. Residents of Crimea expressed their interests to join Russia through a majority vote in a
controversial referendum held immediately after the Russian occupation. Vladimir Putin, the
Russian President, expressed his interest in offering protection to Russian speakers living in the
southeastern part of Ukraine and Crimea.
Studies have indicated that Russia also had economic reasons for invading Crimea.
Ukraine had expressed interest in exploiting their natural gas reserve through a collaborative
process with United States companies. The control of the Crimean gas reserve by the United
States was against the economic interests of the Russian government. Researchers have also
observed that the Russian invasion of Ukrainian territory was a political strategy employed by
Putin to increase his political relevance. President Putin considered that Ukraine offered strong
support to the economic endeavors of the Soviet Union from 1920 to 1991 hence, preferred its
occupation. Ukraine provided raw materials, including minerals and agricultural products for
industries located across the Soviet Union. The invasion of Ukraine is a strategic move that
increased Putin’s popularity to 80 percent in the Russian political arena (Amadeo, 2020).
The Russian-Ukrainian conflict has currently escalated into a dangerous international
conflict. The conflict has led to the growth of a strong alliance between the Ukrainian
government, NATO, the EU, and the United States. NATO, the EU, and the United States have
been involved in the military empowerment of Ukraine through the increase of armament and
human resources. The US government donating $1 billion to the Ukrainian military since 2014 is
EU AND NATO INVOLVEMENT IN RUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN CONFLICT
3
an example of this involvement. NATO and the US had also been involved in massive military
aviation exercises in Ukraine in 2018. Russia, on the other hand, has been engaged in rearmament exercises during this geopolitical tension period.
The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is associated with numerous incidences that triggered
global tension. In 2014, for example, a Malaysian aircraft was struck by a missile leading to the
death of 298 people. The conflict also featured a severe terrorist cyberattack on the Ukrainian
national power grid led to a blackout that affected over 225,000 Ukrainian citizens. This terrorist
attack is a depiction of the complexity of cyberwar in a 21st century, a true threat to security.
There was a second cyberattack initiated on Ukraine in 2016. This terrorist attack interfered with
normal economic activities in the Ukraine. In 2017 the Russian government launched the
NotPetya cyberattack that caused massive harm to computer systems belonging to the Ukrainian
government and businesses.
Reasons for the EU and NATO Involvement in the Russian-Ukrainian Conflict
The EU acknowledged the emergence of new complex threats and global challenges in
2003. The member countries also observed that these challenges mainly emerged beyond its
borders, transforming its defenses to facilitate mitigation processes. Some European member
countries requested an upgrade of the securities system of their organization to protect them from
new foreign problems (Bambas,2015). According to the European Security Strategy the main
threats facing the EU member nations in the new millennium included organized crime,
geopolitical tensions, state failure, nuclear weapon proliferation, and terrorism.
The escalation of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict manifested the current status of its
defense system with regards to its responsiveness to the emerging threats. It evidenced that the
EU had been using an obsolete system that significantly rendered it irrelevant in the 21st
Century. The obsolete system lowered the EU’s ability to influence the international social,
political, and economic agenda. Numerous factors evidenced the negative consequences of the
weakening of its system, including the disintegration of the European Unity. This disintegration
reflected in , reduced political influence, poor performance in international trade, Western-order
erosion, and a massive reduction in the defense budget .
The crisis has indicated that the EU had severe weaknesses in various levels of its
security system, including internal level, external level, and transnational level. The internal level
of the EU’s security system focuses on the threats within the boundaries of the European Union
(Bambas,2015). An investigation into the performance of the domestic scale of its security shows
that member countries have experienced a reduction in prosperity and stability. Member
countries of the EU have experienced a low economic growth rate in the 21st Century, which has
been worsened by political, economic, and social fragmentation (Bambas,2015). These nations
have suffered severe financial problems, including youth unemployment and increased poverty
levels. The weakness at the internal level of the EU has created significant disunity among the
member nations.
This has lead to nations; including Great Britain, Greece, and Germany; to contemplate
leaving the European Union. The external level of this security system focuses on its
responsiveness to foreign aggression. European Union faces Russian aggression from its eastern
side and immigration problems in its southern side because of the ongoing Arab Spring. Fears
EU AND NATO INVOLVEMENT IN RUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN CONFLICT
4
exist regarding the possible spread of insecurity from North Africa and the Middle East to
Europe.
Finally, the transnational security level focuses on issues that include illicit trafficking,
cyberattacks, and terrorist threats facing Europe. This level captures security challenges that EU
member nations should address through a collaborative process with other non-EU member
nations (Bambals, 2015).
Collaboration between the EU and NATO
Russia’s success in its invasion occupation of Crimea depicted it as a formidable threat
for the entire EU region. Russia has disrupted the tranquility of Europe because of the rise in its
military operations in nations located in its eastern and Baltic regions. Member nations of the EU
could not ignore the possibilities of an attack from Russia using nuclear weapons. The
strengthening of the EU’s alliance with the US and NATO is an effective strategy for dealing
with threats from powerful aggressors like Russia.
Federica Mogherini was quick to implement the EU’s idea of collaborating with NATO
after her appointment for Vice-President and High Representative position in the EU. According
to Mogherini creating a NATO-EU alliance would empower Europe, enabling the member
countries to be restored to their former glory. The coalition was eventually created in 2015 based
on the shared goal of supporting Ukraine and repelling aggression (Kramer, 2015). The alliance
enabled NATO and the EU to approach the Russian-Ukrainian conflict from the perspective of
Western supremacy and solidarity.
Mogherini’s urge to establish and create the NATO-EU alliance coincided with the
growing concerns of the U.S. government regarding the increased Russian aggression in Europe.
The United States Congress was extremely concerned about the scope and future significance of
NATO. Participation in NATO has enabled the US to promote peace and stability in Europe.
NATO, like the EU, has also analyzed the strength of its security system(s) following the
Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Although NATO has effectively managed territorial disputes
featuring European countries; including Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova; the Russian invasion of
Crimea stressed its crisis management and military systems. Studies have shown that member
nations of NATO failed to consider Russia as a formidable threat to its Euro-Atlantic region.
The member countries of the EU and NATO observed that Russia had been using a
strategy of “divide-and-rule” to establish its control in the entire Euro-Atlantic region. Political
tensions in Ukraine illustrated the abilities of Russia to introduce divisive politics in European
nations, weakening their economies, cultures, and political structures. The introduction of ethnic
divisions in Ukraine by Russia is evidenced by tensions in the Ukrainian regions of Luhansk and
Donetsk. In 2014, separationist forces supported by the Russian government expressed interests
of separating the Luhansk and Donetsk regions from Ukraine. According to NATO and Ukraine,
Russia has introduced ethnic conflicts in Luhansk and Donetsk that have led to the death of over
10,300 Ukrainian citizens. Russia is still using the same divisive strategy in Estonia and Latvia
by turning minority Russian-speaking residents of these nations against their governments
(Larrabee et al., 2017).
The intelligence gathered by the EU and NATO has indicated that Russia has a long-term
objective of establishing control over nations in the central and eastern parts of Europe.
EU AND NATO INVOLVEMENT IN RUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN CONFLICT
5
Currently most countries in the east and central region of Europe are important markets for
Russian fossil fuel products. Controlling these nations can enable Russia to protect their fossil
fuel market from Western counterparts, including the United States. NATO and the EU have a
daunting task in protecting the Eastern and Central regions of Europe, considering that Russia
has already implemented its strategy of “divide-and-rule” though funding right-wing and leftwing political parties. Furthermore, NATO-EU intelligence has indicated that Russia has
introduced its policy of “divide-and-rule” to powerful European nations, including Germany, the
United Kingdom, and France. The uncovering of France’s intention to sell a Mistral warship to
Russia depicts the role of Russia in creating disunity among member nations of the EU and
NATO. Although the Mistral warship business deal between Russia and France was canceled in
2015, Russia entered into a successful agreement with Cyprus in 2015 (Tran, 2015).
Putin’s decision to attack Ukraine in 2014 stemmed from the motivation that Ukraine had
not allied. Putin believed that the EU and NATO would not rescue Ukraine after the attack. He
planned to launch a continuous strike from land, sea, and air. Russia prepared a contingent of
30,000 soldiers. This contingent was then stationed at the Ukrainian southern border. Russia
also used missiles to reinforce the operation of anti-government rebels in Ukraine. Putin believed
that he would finally annex Ukraine with ease based on the assumption that it was not effectively
affiliated to the EU and NATO.
Effectiveness of EU-NATO Intervention in the Russian-Ukrainian Conflict
NATO and EU have participated in defense of the European region on independent
perspectives since their inception. The independent operation of the two international
organizations led to the separation of security and defense perspectives. Notably, the EU was
seen as a security provider in Europe, while NATO was seen as the defender of Europeans. Lack
of links between the EU and NATO symbolized mistrust and disunity among the members of the
former. This factor triggered excitement and confidence among Russian politicians. However,
the formation of the NATO-EU alliance has strengthened solidarity among the EU member
countries with regards to regional defense. The collaboration increased capability and resilience
among the European nations with regard to solving geopolitical challenges of the 21st Century.
In 2015 the EU and NATO facilitated the Readiness Acton Plan implementation that
increased the allies’ military presence in the seas, land, and air in the eastern EU nations. The
alliance facilitated the creation of an active troop comprising of four to six thousand soldiers.
The partnership facilitated the establishment of control and command centers in six nations in the
eastern EU nations. In 2016 NATO, in collaboration with the EU, sent troops through Poland,
Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia to counter the advancement of Russian forces. The soldiers
received massive reinforcements in 2017 through the introduction of tank brigades from the
United States. The alliance also enabled the United States to introduce high-tech and new jet
fighters to the fleet participating in the campaign of Baltic Air Policing.
The joint operation between NATO and EU defense forces caused a significant
deterrence of Russian aggressions. The two international organizations also increased the
Ukrainian ability to handle Russian aggression. Hungary, Latvia, the United Kingdom, and
Lithuania jointly funded the readiness and interoperability campaign for Ukraine. The strategy
demonstrates the EU's commitment to adopting a useful crisis prevention framework as opposed
to focusing on dealing with consequences. The EU-NATO alliance also placed Ukraine under the
EU AND NATO INVOLVEMENT IN RUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN CONFLICT
6
nuclear umbrella of NATO and the US, ensuring its confrontation against Russia at an equal
military power level.
Considering that Russian attacks on Ukraine targeted critical sectors of its economy,
including the energy sector, the EU and NATO launched a counter-economic war against Russia.
NATO and the EU started a process of economic sanctions in 2014 targeting Russia. The ban
aimed at forcing Putin to end his support for the rebel groups in Ukraine. The bans relied on the
fact that Russia bombed a Malaysian commercial aircraft, killing 298 innocent people. Economic
prohibition disconnected Russian banks from the European region. NATO and EU states also
withdrew their technological support from Russian oil rigs in the Arctic regions. The United
States also severely damaged the Russian titanium business through hoarding operation. An
American-based JPMorgan bank has also announced its decision to terminate its activity in
Russia by 2020.
The prolonged period of economic sanctions employed by NATO and the EU has made
Russia experience an economic recession. The economic downturn is characterized by an
increased inflation rate in the Russian economy. Although Russia has attempted to solve the
inflation problem by increasing bank interest rates, its currency has already undergone a
meltdown. Investors in the Russian forex market from EU and NATO member nations recovered
their funds and re-invested them elsewhere. The economic recession of Russia has forced its
Federal Reserve to lower its credit activity in the global market, reducing its income.
The success of the EU-NATO alliance in overcoming Russian aggression evidences the
tactical approach to global security issues. The progress of the crisis shows that solving of 21st
Century problems require collaboration between nations. The European countries have been
engaged in the development of high-tech military gadgets such as cyber defense systems,
satellites, drones, and aircraft. The Russian-Ukraine conflict has enabled EU nations to integrate
both security and defense factors with their operations. The increased armament process of the
EU has enabled it to protect its borders and values and generate proper foreign policies. The
increased unity of European nations has shown the Russian government its accountability on
global security responsibilities.
Turkey and Japan are two nations in the geopolitically significant countries that have
expressed their interests in joining the EU-NATO alliance. Japan is currently ranked third in
terms of economic might at the global level. Japan shares norms and values with NATO and EU
member states, hence facilitating compatibility. The Russian-Ukrainian conflict has enlightened
Japan on the importance of joining the EU-NATO alliance. Japan has already reformed its
constitution to facilitate the integration of self-defense and collective defense in dealing with
emerging threats. Japan’s decision to join the EU-NATO alliance follows its anticipation of the
establishment of the Russia-China alliance in the future. Currently, Japan has been drawn into a
new territorial dispute with China over the islands of Diaoyu/Senkaku. Turkey, like Japan, has
considered joining the EU-NATO alliance because of the hostile political environments in the
neighboring Asian region. Turkey currently spends 2% of its Gross Domestic Products on its
defense system. Increasing its military strength and strong integration with NATO and the EU
would enable it to overcome terrorism threats and insecurity.
EU AND NATO INVOLVEMENT IN RUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN CONFLICT
7
Conclusion
The Russian invasion of Crimea took NATO, EU, and Ukraine by surprise. They
ignored Russia’s power. The invasion caused a significant tension on the EU defense system in
terms of its flexibility, resilience, endurance, and responsiveness. The success of the EU-NATO
alliance in overcoming Russian aggression. This is indicated by the evolution of the 21st Century
strategies of warfare. The effectiveness of the EU-NATO alliance introduced elements of
resilience and flexibility to the EU member nations. It is a strategy that has enabled the EU to
design and synchronize defense policies with allies such as NATO. The approach has also
exposed the importance of collectively employing corporative security, crisis management, and
collective defense in overcoming advanced 21st Century security threats, including hybrid
warfare, cyberattacks, terrorism, and nuclear weapons. EU-NATO alliances offers a long-term
solution to the problems facing its member nations. International organizations are exploring
efforts to increase the number of participants to improve their preparedness against more
complex threats in the future.
EU AND NATO INVOLVEMENT IN RUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN CONFLICT
8
References
Amadeo, K. (2020). Ukraine Crisis Summary and Explanation. The Balance. Retrieved from
https://www.thebalance.com/ukraine-crisis-summary-and-explanation-3970462
Bambas, R. (2015). European Security, Defense, and Global Role. The Centre for East European
Policy Studies, 13-34.
Blackwill, R. D., & Sestanovich, S. (2020). Conflict in Ukraine. Global Conflict Tracker.
Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/interactive/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflictukraine
Kramer, D. J. (2015). The Ukraine invasion: one year later. World Affairs, 177(6), 9-16.
Larrabee, F. S., Pezard, S., Radin, A., Chandler, N., Crane, K., & Szayna, T. S. (2017). Russia
and the West after the Ukrainian crisis: European vulnerabilities to Russian pressures. Rand
Corporation.
Machida, Satoshi. (2009). Globalization and the Legitimacy of Intergovernmental Organizations.
International Studies, 46(4), 371-400.
Tran, P. (2015). Mistral Dispute with Russia Settled, France Eyes Exports. Defense News.
Retrieved from https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2015/08/09/mistral-dispute-withrussia-settled-france-eyes-exports/
Purchase answer to see full
attachment