Members of the Wagner Group prepare to depart from the Southern Military District's headquarters and return to their base on June 24, 2023 in Rostov-on-Don, Russia. (Photo by Stringer/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
In the just-concluded two-day EU summit held in Brussels, the spotlight remained predominantly on three key subjects: the protracted Ukraine conflict, the delicate art of de-risking from China and the intricate web of migration reforms.
It was the former two points that captured the longest slots at the deliberations, testimony to the sheer gravity these pressing concerns bear on the very fabric of the European continent. However, a subject not part of the official agenda — the repercussions of the surprising mutiny in Russia and its resounding implications for the tenacious reign of President Vladimir Putin — consumed an inordinate amount of the participants’ attention.
This unforeseen spectre cast a shadow over the proceedings, as they pondered the unfolding narrative of power dynamics in Russia and its potential reverberations throughout the international arena.
The Wagner incident instigated a very interesting debate among the European leaders on the question of whether an “ostensibly weakened” Putin — after the Wagner mutiny — has become more dangerous. A prevailing sentiment among the majority of them emerged, suggesting that a “wounded Putin” is poised to escalate his assault on Ukraine.
This perspective gained traction as the leaders speculated on the potential consequences of a weakened Russian leader projecting a heightened level of aggression and hostility towards Ukrainians. Nato chief Jens Stoltenberg, considered to be among the most “updated” individuals on the Russian situation , was cautious while talking on this subject and suggested that it was “too early” to draw conclusions regarding the effects of recent events.
“The mutiny we saw at the weekend demonstrates that there are cracks and divisions within the Russian system. At the same time, it is important to underline that these are internal Russian matters,” Stoltenberg said.
But Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who addressed the summit via video link, appeared emboldened by the latest development in Moscow and adopted a belligerent tone, thanking the EU leaders for 11th package of sanctions against Russia, which was approved earlier last month and was specifically tailored to impede the circumvention of existing restrictions by other nations and corporate entities.
“We are seeing their weakness, which we so badly need. The weaker Russia is, and the more its bosses fear mutinies and uprisings, the more they will fear to irritate us. Russia’s weakness will make it safe for others and its defeat will solve the problem of this war,” said Zelenskiy, making veiled references to the failed uprising perpetrated by the Wagner mercenaries in Russia.
A considerable faction at the summit rallied behind Zelenskiy’s assertion, affirming that the opportune moment had arrived to strike hard to exploit the vulnerability of an already weakened Putin.
President Gitanas Nauseda of Lithuania, which shares a border with Russia, adamantly maintained that the situation provided ample justification for adopting a resolute stance against Putin. Some say “that a strong Putin is less dangerous than a weak Putin. I don’t agree with that. We have to move forward and be decisive, because now is a crucial moment of history,” Nauseda said, while supporting Zelenskiy’s request to the EU for more military and financial assistance.
The foreign policy chief of the EU, Josep Borrell, unveiled a proposal that could potentially bolster the bloc’s support for Ukraine. Borrell emphasised the importance of capitalising on the existing EU assistance provided to Ukraine, particularly through the European Peace Facility fund. This fund is already injecting billions of euros into financing arms for the embattled country, as well as facilitating a training project for Ukrainian troops.
“The military support to Ukraine has to [be for the] long haul. The training has to continue, the modernisation of the army has to continue. Ukraine needs our commitment to continue ensuring their security during the war and after the war,” Borrell told the media, suggesting the EU could establish a Ukrainian Defence Fund, modelled on the peace fund.
In a display of its advocacy for a stronger security and defence role for the EU, France put forward a proposal on this matter. However, to address concerns from militarily neutral nations and staunch supporters of transatlantic cooperation, including the Baltic states, the final communique was amended accordingly.
These countries perceive European security primarily as a responsibility of Nato, with robust US involvement. Consequently, the final text stated that the EU would contribute “together with partners” and “in full respect of the security and defence policy of certain member states”. This EU statement adds to an ongoing discourse among Nato members and influential military powers, such as the US, Britain, France and Germany, regarding measures to reassure Ukraine of the West’s enduring commitment to bolstering its security in the long run.
Although Ukraine has been insisting that the most effective way to ensure its own security and that of Europe is through Nato membership, Kyiv also acknowledges that such a move is unattainable during the ongoing conflict, while Nato allies remain divided on the timeline for potential accession after the resolution of hostilities.
The upheaval and instability triggered by the Wagner rebellion has compelled the EU to fortify its backing for Ukraine. In the final statement, the EU leaders emphasised their preparedness to join forces with partners in providing future security commitments to Ukraine. This united effort seeks to empower Ukraine in its long-term defence, acting as a deterrent against aggression and thwarting destabilisation efforts.
While most EU nations are also Nato members, they will convene at the alliance summit on 11 and 12 July to explore avenues for extending enhanced security assurances to Ukraine, albeit stopping short of full Nato membership.
The EU and its member countries have already furnished an estimated €75 billion in aid to bolster Ukraine’s military capabilities and ensure the survival of its beleaguered economy. Notably, the leaders deliberated on the use of Russia’s frozen assets, amounting to around €200 billion, for this purpose. They have tasked the commission and foreign policy unit with devising a coordinated approach, in collaboration with international partners willing to join in this move. Nevertheless, concerns persist among several nations regarding the legal foundation for such measures.
The European Central Bank has also cautioned that seizing these assets or their accumulated profits could pose significant risks to the euro’s reputation. Apparently, the EU, desperate to prevent the escalation of fighting and violence from permeating into the neighbouring countries, is going full throttle to snub Putin in this war, which is increasingly turning into a “frozen conflict”.
Dr Imran Khalid is a freelance columnist on international affairs based in Karachi, Pakistan. He qualified as a physician at Dow Medical University in 1991 and has a master’s degree in international relations from Karachi University.