Greece (Brussels Morning) Recently, the EU approved a loan to Ukraine, part of a €35 billion aid package that had been pre-agreed in June by G7 members. This amount is part of the approximately €210 billion in assets that have been frozen in EU banks, which are to be used to support Kyiv’s defense. A natural question that arises is: when the war in Ukraine eventually ends, won’t the Kremlin try to unfreeze these funds?
Won’t the oligarchs want to regain control over their savings? And, more importantly, won’t they seek to either transfer these funds elsewhere or take revenge on EU financial institutions? Many argue that these frozen assets—savings from illegal activities of oligarchs or businesspeople who supported the Russian offensive—were simply held in the EU as a financial cushion, enabling the oligarchs and their families to invest and vacation in the EU.
Eastern European countries are concerned that they may be the next victims of a broader policy of redrawing borders and creating political and territorial buffer zones that the Kremlin has decided to push forward. Disillusioned with NATO, feeling wronged and deceived by agreements from the 1990s, they believe that the U.S. and its allies exploited the situation and drew countries into NATO and the EU that should have remained neutral, such as Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltic states, and of course, Ukraine.
The countries of the Caucasus are a different case, where Georgia and Armenia, despite a large portion of the population wishing otherwise, will find it very difficult to escape Russia’s sphere of influence.
Russian Aggressiveness
The Baltic countries are among the largest financial supporters and have taken in many refugees, offering assistance and jobs both within the country and remotely. Sweden and Finland have shifted and upgraded their global geostrategic status through NATO. Proof that they made the right decision came a few months ago when Moscow requested a redefinition of maritime borders with the countries bordering the Russian region of Kaliningrad, formerly the German Königsberg until 1946, when the city was captured by the Soviets and renamed in honour of Russian Bolshevik leader Mikhail Kalinin.
Does Russia genuinely need to expand its maritime influence in the area to such a degree? Not necessarily, but it is doing so to signal to neighbouring countries that it is not afraid to challenge them on both an interstate and collective level.
German intelligence officials warned the Bundestag about Russia’s escalating aggression, suggesting that Moscow could potentially attack NATO by the end of the decade. They reported increased Russian espionage and sabotage activities, signalling a rising threat to NATO and Germany. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov dismissed these claims, while NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte reaffirmed the alliance’s support for Ukraine, calling Russia’s actions an “illegal war.” Germany’s Interior Minister also emphasized the ongoing security challenges posed by Russia.
The U.S. and U.K. agreed unofficially to allow Ukraine to strike Russian targets with Western-supplied missiles at a White House summit. This came out as news last month but already the Ukrainians are using the supplies of their allies to strike in Russian heartland. Russian President Putin warned this would be seen as NATO directly entering the war. The talks follow concerns over Iranian missile shipments to Russia, which have shifted Western thinking on Ukraine’s long-range capabilities.
“We are not talking about allowing or not allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons,”
Putin stated to Pavel Zarubin.
“We are talking about deciding whether NATO countries are directly involved in the military conflict or not.”
On the other hand, President Biden speaks of potential cooperation between London and Washington in a meaningless statement. This declaration, reaffirming an already longstanding collaboration from years ago, is accompanied by remarks that Putin will lose the war and the Ukrainians will win. Meanwhile, Putin publicly states that they will legally assess whether NATO is indirectly involved in attacks on Russia and will use “legitimate” defense in response.
“If someone thinks it is possible to supply such weapons to a warzone to attack our territory and create problems for us, why don’t we have the right to supply weapons of the same class to regions of the world where there will be strikes on sensitive facilities of those (Western) countries,”
Putin said.
The Western world has been troubled by the situation in Yemen, while the fact that France is being expelled from the Sahel region has not gone unnoticed. At the same time, Syria, Libya, Morocco, and others are opposing the policies of the U.S., U.K., and Germany to varying degrees. Even Argentina has once again brought up the Falkland Islands issue on some platforms.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
