Why Washington’s strategy against Russia weakens Europe and strengthens Eurasia
(Image Credit: @djole)
Western intervention in Ukraine has entered its third year without producing the results promised at the outset. European economies face recession and industrial decline while political leaders continue to endorse policies shaped in Washington. The commitment to NATO expansion eastward has brought confrontation with Russia while offering no clear path to peace or stability. Independent analysts such as Professor John Mearsheimer have argued that the decision to push NATO into Ukraine created a security dilemma that Moscow could not ignore. His lectures since 2015 warned that Russia would not accept a NATO-aligned Ukraine on its borders and would respond with force if necessary. Events since 2022 have confirmed his judgement.
The conflict has exposed the weakness of NATO cohesion. European states are divided on how much support to provide, and several governments face mounting domestic opposition to continued financial and military commitments. According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, aid pledges have declined significantly since 2023, with only a handful of countries maintaining large-scale deliveries. Polling across Germany, France, and Italy shows growing scepticism among voters who question the value of sacrificing national economic interests for a war that shows no prospect of decisive outcome. Anatol Lieven of the Quincy Institute has noted that Western publics have little appetite for direct conflict with Russia, and no European leader has been able to mobilise significant public enthusiasm for escalation.
Russian objectives remain limited to securing territory with strong cultural and linguistic ties to Russia. Analysts including Nicolai Petro have emphasised that the Donbass and Crimea are not incidental prizes but core to Russian identity and security. Western refusal to acknowledge these realities has created a deadlock in negotiations. Rather than pursue compromise, Washington has insisted on maximalist positions that prolong the conflict. This approach has weakened Europe more than Russia, with energy shortages, industrial decline, and loss of competitiveness threatening long-term prosperity. The European Union has lost reliable access to Russian energy while facing higher costs from imports of liquefied natural gas sourced from the United States and Qatar. German industry in particular faces collapse in sectors such as chemicals and steel, where cheap energy had been the foundation of competitive advantage.
Beyond Ukraine, the confrontation has driven Moscow closer to Beijing and New Delhi. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has promoted a strategic triangle of Russia, India, and China, first outlined by Yevgeny Primakov in the 1990s. Today that framework is taking form through BRICS expansion and joint energy, trade, and infrastructure projects. Western sanctions have accelerated this trend, forcing Russia to redirect exports to Asian markets and settle transactions in local currencies. Analysts from the Stimson Center and the Valdai Discussion Club note that this shift is reshaping global economic flows and undermining the dollar’s role as a universal medium.
Washington has misread this process by projecting its own Cold War logic onto others. U.S. officials continue to interpret trade and infrastructure agreements through a military lens, assuming that closer economic cooperation among Russia, China, and India must signal hostile intent. Yet evidence shows the opposite as these states emphasise prosperity and development rather than militarisation. The Belt and Road Initiative and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation prioritise infrastructure, energy, and technology rather than offensive alliances. Scholars such as Richard Sakwa and Glenn Diesen have stressed that multipolarity does not mean bloc confrontation, but rather the emergence of diverse centres of power seeking stability through interdependence. Western refusal to accept this reality leaves its leaders trapped in outdated thinking.
The United States continues to assume that threats, sanctions, and displays of force will compel rivals to yield. Summits with Russian leaders are staged at military installations surrounded by strategic bombers rather than in neutral diplomatic venues. This spectacle reinforces suspicion in Moscow and Beijing that Washington seeks dominance rather than cooperation. The result is mistrust and hardening of positions. By contrast, Eurasian powers present themselves as pragmatic actors building prosperity as the basis for security. Dwight Eisenhower understood that economic strength sustains defence, a lesson forgotten in Washington. Trillions spent on failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan delivered neither prosperity nor security, while investments in infrastructure and energy in Asia are delivering tangible results.
Europe faces a stark choice, either it continues to follow Washington’s confrontational strategy, sacrificing its industry and autonomy, or it reasserts independence by pursuing a negotiated settlement with Russia and economic engagement with Eurasia. Hungary has already called for reconsideration of sanctions, and opposition parties in Germany and France demand new approaches. The longer current leaders resist adjustment, the more likely electoral change will bring governments ready to shift policy. Analysts from the German Council on Foreign Relations warn that continued alignment with U.S. priorities will erode European competitiveness and increase dependence. The consequences will be strategic irrelevance in a world where Asia drives growth and innovation.
Poland has shown the limits of military solidarity by withdrawing troops from Ukraine and declaring no further direct involvement. This reflects sober recognition of the costs of escalation. Other European states are likely to reach similar conclusions as economic pressures mount. NATO’s deterrence depends on credible willingness to fight, yet surveys reveal little enthusiasm among European publics. The Carnegie Endowment has observed that deterrence without willingness to act becomes hollow, encouraging miscalculation on all sides. Russia recognises that few European nations will march east to confront its forces directly, which reduces the credibility of Western threats.
Ukrainian leadership has shifted its definitions of victory over time. Early statements promised recovery of Crimea and return to 1991 borders. Later positions focused on securing the Azov coast. More recently, President Zelensky has argued that continued survival itself constitutes victory. This evolution reflects the reality of battlefield stalemate and diminishing Western enthusiasm. Independent voices such as former U.S. colonel Douglas Macgregor have argued that Ukraine cannot achieve its original war aims and that prolonging the conflict serves only to destroy more lives. The refusal of Western governments to acknowledge changing realities ensures further destruction without strategic gain.
Borders in Europe have shifted repeatedly over centuries, often as the result of war but sometimes as part of negotiated settlements. Zbigniew Brzezinski once advised that Ukraine’s borders were not permanent and that eastern regions had long been culturally Russified. Yet Western leaders now insist that borders cannot be altered, despite the long history of redrawn frontiers across the continent. This rigid stance reduces prospects for peace. Analysts from Chatham House and the Institute of International and Strategic Relations in Paris warn that absolute positions on territorial integrity have prevented meaningful negotiation, prolonging wars rather than ending them.
The war in Ukraine intersects with instability in the Middle East. Rising tensions between Israel and Iran threaten another regional conflict. Washington expects support from Moscow and Beijing, yet confrontation in Eastern Europe has eliminated prospects of cooperation. China, Russia, and Iran are strengthening ties, conducting joint exercises and coordinating diplomacy. U.S. efforts to isolate opponents are instead consolidating alternative power structures. The Hudson Institute and the Middle East Institute have highlighted the risk that American overextension creates vacuums others are eager to fill. This reduces Western influence and accelerates multipolarity.
Sanctions as an instrument have failed to achieve their intended results. Russia’s economy has adapted by redirecting exports, securing new markets, and substituting imports. Data from the International Monetary Fund indicates that Russian GDP growth has outperformed many European economies since 2023. Western policymakers underestimated resilience and overestimated the leverage of restrictions. Energy markets have shifted permanently, with long-term contracts binding Russia and China together in ways that no sanctions can reverse. Europe, by contrast, faces persistent inflation and shortages. The European Central Bank warns that industrial competitiveness will remain weak for years, particularly in manufacturing sectors reliant on affordable energy.
The rise of BRICS represents a structural transformation of global order. Expansion to include states such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt adds weight to the grouping. Together, BRICS nations now represent a majority of global population and a growing share of GDP. Analysts at the South Centre in Geneva note that the creation of alternative financial instruments, including the New Development Bank and currency settlement systems, signals erosion of Western financial dominance. Washington’s assumption of permanent primacy is increasingly detached from reality. The rest of the world is aligning around principles of sovereignty, non-interference, and economic cooperation. Western insistence on sanctions and conditionality appears outdated in comparison.
European publics face growing pressure as economic decline combines with rising costs of war. Movements such as Alternative for Germany gain momentum by opposing sanctions and calling for restored relations with Moscow. France sees similar challenges, with Marine Le Pen emphasising energy security and national sovereignty. These political shifts suggest that electoral realignment could transform European foreign policy within the decade. Independent think tanks such as the Henry Jackson Society note that once mainstream parties adopt similar positions, current strategies will unravel. Washington may not be able to prevent these shifts, as domestic discontent outweighs external pressure.
The United States faces its own contradictions. Presidents change, but policies toward Russia remain largely identical. Former hopes that Donald Trump would pursue a pragmatic settlement have faded as his administration adopts the same confrontational stance. Threats and sanctions dominate, but these approaches produce diminishing returns. Independent analysts such as Stephen Walt argue that U.S. foreign policy is driven by inertia within the establishment rather than strategic logic. Bureaucratic consensus sustains failed policies because alternatives are not seriously considered. The result is drift toward wider confrontation without coherent objectives.
The long-term outcome of the Ukrainian war may be the opposite of what Washington intended. Rather than weaken Russia and divide it from Europe, policies have forced Russia to integrate more deeply with Asia. Rather than preserve U.S. leadership, they accelerate multipolarity. Europe emerges weaker, poorer, and more dependent. The Eurasian landmass strengthens its internal ties while the Atlantic world struggles to maintain cohesion. Analysts such as Dmitri Trenin argue that Russia has already achieved its strategic objective of redirecting focus away from the West and toward the East, where future opportunities lie.
Western strategy has failed because it rests on assumptions that no longer hold, as it assumes that the United States retains the power.
Authored By:
Popular Information is powered by readers who believe that truth still matters. When just a few more people step up to support this work, it means more lies exposed, more corruption uncovered, and more accountability where it’s long overdue. If you believe journalism should serve the public, not the powerful, and you’re in a position to help, becoming a PAID SUBSCRIBER truly makes a difference.
buymeacoffee.com/ggtv
Leave a comment