For Putin, the EU Is a Bigger Threat Than NATO – Foreign Policy

The June European Parliament elections delivered a historic success for far-right, euroskeptic parties. Now making up nearly a quarter of the chamber, these parties are poised to exert a powerful influence on the future political trajectory of the European Union, including by aiming to roll back various aspects of integration and opposing the blocs further enlargement.

The June European Parliament elections delivered a historic success for far-right, euroskeptic parties. Now making up nearly a quarter of the chamber, these parties are poised to exert a powerful influence on the future political trajectory of the European Union, including by aiming to roll back various aspects of integration and opposing the blocs further enlargement.

Seen from Moscow, this result is sure to be cause for celebration. Various prominent Russian politicians hailed the rise of right-wing parties in the EU following the elections, with former President Dmitry Medvedev calling for pro-EU leaders to be relegated to the ash heap of history. Russia also went to great lengths to support euroskeptic parties in the run-up to the vote, including by paying far-right EU politicians to parrot Kremlin talking points as well as by launching massive online disinformation campaigns and cyberattacks on key websites. Furthermore, with Hungary now holding the rotating EU presidency, Moscow is doing all it can to help Russia-friendly Hungarian President Viktor Orban subvert a unified EU stance on Russias war in Ukraine.

Russias latest efforts mark a notable uptick in its attempts to undermine the EU. The Kremlin has long harbored animosity toward the blocbut as Russias confrontation with the West has intensified, this hostility has only grown. For Moscow, the new momentum toward widening and deepening the EU represents a unique and increasingly urgent threat to its attempts to assert its illiberal governance model, both at home and abroad.

It is the EU, not NATO, that presents the real existential threat to the Kremlin. Thats because Ukraines membership in and integration into the EU could deliver a fatal blow to Russian President Vladimir Putin and his regime by turning Ukraine into what Russia most fears: a political, economic, and sociocultural alternative to Russia itself. Although Putins popularity among Russians remains high, the Kremlin could very well worry that Russian citizens may begin to see the benefits of EU membership across the border and desire an alternative future for their country.

That would explain why Putin began his long war against Ukraine in 2014. At that time, Ukraine was militarily neutral and was not actively seeking to join NATO. (It had previously expressed interest in membership in 2008.) But Kyiv was about to sign an association agreement with the EU that the Kremlins interference in Ukrainian politics could not prevent.

Western commentators have largely ignored the EU-Russia relationship, instead often blaming possible NATO enlargement for catalyzing the Kremlins aggression. Proponents of the NATO theory include academics (such as John Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt), media figures (such as Tucker Carlson), and populist politicians (such as Britains Nigel Farage and former U.S. President Donald Trump). Both of the latter have repeated claims along these lines in recent weeks.

Underpinning these justifications for Russias war is the assumption that the Kremlin seriously considersand is justified in consideringNATOs eastward expansion as a threat to Russias physical security. Putin would certainly like to break NATO and Western unity, but its not because he thinks Russia is militarily threatened. If he did, the Russian military would not be leaving the countrys roughly 1,600-mile border with NATO members virtually undefended as it redeploys troops and weapons to Ukraine.

Even short of directly undermining regime stability within Russia, EU enlargement poses a threat to a key ideological pillar of Putins foreign policy: his antiquated obsession with maintaining a so-called sphere of influence along Russias periphery. Russias perceived need to control the political orientation of its neighbors could not differ any more sharply from the outlook of EU member states, which aim to amplify their own power and influence by sharing their sovereignty in a bloc. To this end, the EU has developed a complex institutional architecture to ensure an equilibrium where every state feels it has a fair say in decision-making.

Russia, by contrast, seeks to impose its will upon bordering countries and prevent them from shaping their own futureseither directly through conquest, as Russia is attempting in Ukraine, or indirectly through various coercive tactics, including weaponized corruption. Russian-led regional organizations, such as the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the Eurasian Economic Union, serve largely as forums for the Kremlin to pressure neighboring countries to follow its priorities rather than pursue genuine collaboration.

Russia is right to be concerned about the EUs ability to spur deep political change. Since the end of the Cold War, EU membership has been crucial in shaping former autocratic regimes in Central and Eastern Europe into thriving liberal democracies. This is no accident: The EUs accession criteria require new members to have institutions that guarantee democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and the protection of minoritiesvalues that are antithetical to those promoted by the Russian regime.

Russia has hardened its opposition to EU enlargement over the years as it has observed the transformational effect of membership. When the three Baltic states plus othersincluding the Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovakiajoined in 2004, Moscow took little notice, regarding the bloc primarily through an economic lens rather than a geopolitical one.

Yet in the years since 2004, Russia has woken up to the reality of the EUs power to drive profound domestic political change. No country illustrates this better than Ukraine. After Ukrainians protested in late 2013 against then-President Viktor Yanukovychs decision to back away from an EU association agreementultimately leading to his ouster in February 2014Putin attempted to reassert control over the countrys political direction by annexing Crimea.

Then in February 2022, Russia took its effort to keep Ukraine from joining the Western community one step further by launching a full-scale invasionwhich, ironically, increased the prospects of EU integration not only for Ukraine, but also for neighboring Moldova and Georgia. Since then, Russia has used various tactics to hinder Moldovas and Georgias paths to accession as well, including by subverting the formers pro-EU government and supporting the latters recent passage of a Russian-style foreign agents law to stifle democratic dissent.

Nonetheless, the EU should not shy away from enlargement. The blocs expansion has been a uniquely effective force for fostering prosperity, stability, and democracy on the European continent over the decades, bringing the region ever closer to the vision of a Europe whole, free, and at peace.

Furthermore, the success or failure of the next round of EU enlargement will have striking consequences for the future of international order. Russia, by aiming to prevent the EUs enlargement and impose its own control over Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, is on a campaign to reassert its imperial idea in Europe. This poses an immense challenge to the credibility of the EUs post-imperial vision to achieve collaborative regional governance through integrationultimately the raison dtre of the bloc. Russian success would also risk legitimizing expansionism elsewhere by emboldening other countries to follow similar imperial strategies against their neighbors.

To ensure the failure of Russias imperialist vision, the EU must follow through on its promises to integrate new memberswhile becoming more resilient in the process. It would be both a strategic and an ethical failure not to support other European countries wishing to develop resilient democratic political institutions, robust civil societies, and flourishing economies. Russia should not be given a veto.

More:

For Putin, the EU Is a Bigger Threat Than NATO - Foreign Policy