The international order in transition: Europe’s marginalization and new geopolitical realities
Abstract
The war in Ukraine has significantly reshaped the global geopolitical landscape, exposing the limitations of Western strategic planning and accelerating Europe’s geopolitical marginalization. Initially framed as a battle between democracy and authoritarianism, the conflict has instead underscored Europe’s dependence on U.S. security guarantees, the limited effectiveness of economic sanctions against Russia, and the rising influence of non-Western powers such as China and the BRICS bloc.
This study examines the extent to which the war has contributed to Europe’s declining global influence, focusing on its exclusion from key diplomatic negotiations, its economic vulnerabilities, and its inability to act as an independent security actor. By analyzing recent developments, including U.S.-Russia negotiations and the shifting economic balance toward the Global South, this paper evaluates Europe’s strategic dilemmas and possible future scenarios in a multipolar world.
Using Realist, Liberal, and Constructivist theoretical frameworks, the research explores Western miscalculations, the unintended consequences of the war, and Europe’s challenges in adapting to a new global order. The study relies on qualitative discourse analysis, policy reports, economic data, and military assessments to assess the central research question:
To what extent has the war in Ukraine accelerated Europe’s geopolitical marginalization?
Keywords: Ukraine war, strategic failure, Europe, transatlantic divide, NATO, BRICS, geopolitical realignments, economic sanctions, military dependence, strategic autonomy.
1. Introduction: Europe’s Strategic Dilemma in a Transforming Global Order
1.1 Research Question and Hypotheses
The war in Ukraine has forced a reevaluation of Europe’s global position, especially as U.S.-Russia tensions escalate, China strengthens its global influence, and multipolar power dynamics reshape international affairs. This paper seeks to address the fundamental research question:
To what extent has the war in Ukraine accelerated Europe’s geopolitical marginalization?
The study advances the following hypotheses:
• H1: The war in Ukraine has weakened Europe as a strategic actor due to its economic vulnerabilities, dependence on U.S. security guarantees, and exclusion from major global negotiations.
• H2: Despite its military dependence on NATO, the European Union retains economic and regulatory power, allowing it to maintain some global relevance.
• H3: The emerging multipolar world, driven by U.S.-China competition and the expansion of BRICS, has structurally diminished Europe’s role in international decision-making.
1.2 Methodology
This study employs a qualitative discourse analysis to assess the geopolitical and economic consequences of the war in Ukraine for Europe. The methodology consists of:
1. Case Study Analysis – Examining Europe’s role in the Ukraine conflict, including security policies, economic sanctions, and diplomatic strategies.
2. Comparative Analysis – Evaluating Europe’s geopolitical weight relative to the U.S., Russia, and China.
3. Economic and Military Data Evaluation – Analyzing trade flows, energy dependencies, military spending, and the effectiveness of Western military aid to Ukraine.
Primary sources include official policy reports (EU, NATO, IMF, World Bank), scholarly literature (Mearsheimer, Waltz, Keohane, Nye, Wendt), government statements, and economic data. This interdisciplinary approach provides a comprehensive evaluation of Europe’s geopolitical trajectory post-Ukraine war.
2. The War in Ukraine – A Strategic Failure for the West?
2.1 Western Strategic Miscalculations and the War’s Initial Objectives
At the outset of the war, Western policymakers pursued three core assumptions:
1. Economic sanctions would cripple Russia’s economy, forcing Moscow to reduce military operations.
2. Military aid would enable Ukraine to push back Russian advances and regain occupied territories.
3. Diplomatic pressure would isolate Russia, limiting its access to global markets and strategic alliances.
However, these assumptions have largely been disproven, exposing significant flaws in Western strategic calculations.
2.1.1 The Failure of Economic Sanctions
Western sanctions against Russia were among the harshest imposed on any major economy, including:
• The freezing of $300 billion in Russian foreign reserves (IMF, 2023).
• Exclusion of Russian banks from SWIFT, the global financial messaging system.
• Energy embargos targeting oil, gas, and key technology exports.
Contrary to expectations, Russia’s economy proved resilient. Trade was redirected toward China, India, and Middle Eastern partners, mitigating much of the economic damage (Kofman & Lee, 2023). By 2023, Russia’s GDP grew by 3.2%, defying predictions of economic collapse (World Bank, 2024). High energy prices allowed Moscow to increase revenues despite reduced European exports (Gaddy & Ickes, 2024).
Moreover, the sanctions inadvertently pushed Russia closer to China, accelerating the de-dollarization trend and weakening Western financial hegemony (Huang & Chee, 2024). The use of yuan and rubles in trade settlements has expanded, challenging the dominance of the U.S. dollar and euro in global markets.
2.1.2 Military Stalemate and the Limits of Western Intervention
While NATO’s military aid strengthened Ukraine’s resistance, the conflict has reached a stalemate, raising concerns over the sustainability of Western intervention.
The Failure of the Ukrainian Counteroffensive
The 2023 counteroffensive was expected to reverse Russian territorial gains. However, it failed due to:
• Russia’s fortified defensive lines and extensive minefields.
2. The War in Ukraine – A Strategic Setback for the West?
The war in Ukraine has been a defining geopolitical event, testing Western strategies in economic sanctions, military aid, and diplomacy. While some initial expectations from the United States and the European Union have not materialized as intended, the notion of a total strategic failure is debatable. The war has revealed both successes and limitations in the Western approach, requiring a more nuanced assessment.
2.1 Western Strategic Miscalculations and the War’s Initial Objectives
At the outset of the war, Western policymakers pursued three main objectives:
1. Economic Sanctions Would Cripple Russia’s Economy: The expectation was that unprecedented financial restrictions would force Moscow to scale back its military campaign.
2. Military Aid Would Enable Ukraine to Retake Occupied Territories: Western assistance aimed to strengthen Ukraine’s resistance and facilitate a counteroffensive to reclaim lost ground.
3. Diplomatic Isolation Would Weaken Russia’s Global Influence: The goal was to sever Moscow’s ties with key economic and political partners, limiting its strategic options.
However, while these assumptions have encountered significant challenges, it would be incorrect to dismiss them entirely.
2.1.1 The Mixed Impact of Economic Sanctions
Western sanctions against Russia have been among the harshest ever imposed on a major global economy, including:
• The freezing of $300 billion in Russian foreign reserves (IMF, 2024).
• Exclusion of major Russian banks from SWIFT, disrupting international financial transactions.
• An embargo on key energy exports to Europe, aimed at cutting off a crucial revenue stream.
Initially, these measures were expected to bring the Russian economy to its knees, leading to a swift end to the war. However, Russia’s economy has proven more resilient than anticipated. Trade reorientation towards China, India, and Middle Eastern nations has helped mitigate economic damage (World Bank, 2024). In 2023, Russia’s GDP grew by 3.2%, defying early predictions of economic collapse (OECD, 2024).
However, this resilience comes at a cost:
• Structural weaknesses are becoming more apparent. Russia’s economy is increasingly reliant on war-related industries, limiting long-term sustainability (European Central Bank, 2024).
• The country faces technology shortages, as sanctions have cut off access to advanced Western semiconductors and machinery, affecting military production and industry (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2024).
• Russia’s budget deficit has widened, with higher defense spending forcing Moscow to dip into sovereign reserves (IMF, 2024).
While sanctions have not led to immediate collapse, they have significantly weakened Russia’s long-term economic outlook, making sustained war efforts increasingly costly.
2.1.2 Military Aid and the Reality of the Battlefield
Western military aid has played a crucial role in preventing a rapid Russian victory, enabling Ukraine to sustain resistance and conduct counteroffensives. By 2024, the United States and European allies had provided over $100 billion in military assistance, including advanced weaponry such as HIMARS, Leopard 2 tanks, and Patriot air defense systems (NATO, 2024).
However, expectations of a decisive Ukrainian counteroffensive have not fully materialized:
• The 2023 counteroffensive faced stiff resistance, as Russian forces had fortified defensive positions with extensive minefields and layered defenses (RAND Corporation, 2024).
• Logistical and manpower challenges persist, with Ukraine requiring continuous Western support to maintain operations.
• NATO stockpiles are under strain, as prolonged aid to Ukraine has depleted weapons reserves, prompting concerns over long-term military readiness (IISS, 2024).
Despite these difficulties, Ukraine has achieved key strategic successes:
• The Russian Black Sea Fleet has suffered major losses, weakening Moscow’s naval dominance in the region (UK Ministry of Defence, 2024).
• Ukrainian long-range strikes have disrupted Russian supply lines, particularly in Crimea and occupied territories.
• Russia has failed to achieve its initial war objectives, such as capturing Kyiv or toppling the Ukrainian government.
Thus, while Ukraine has not achieved a total military breakthrough, it has significantly weakened Russia’s strategic position, forcing Moscow into a prolonged conflict.
2.1.3 The Limits of Russia’s Diplomatic Isolation
The West sought to isolate Russia diplomatically, aiming to turn it into a pariah state. However, Russia has managed to maintain and even strengthen some key international relationships:
• China has deepened economic ties with Moscow, increasing purchases of Russian oil and gas while providing non-lethal military support (Brookings Institution, 2024).
• India has expanded trade with Russia, particularly in energy, taking advantage of discounted prices (Observer Research Foundation, 2024).
• The Middle East has remained neutral, with countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia balancing relations between Russia and the West.
However, diplomatic support for Russia has limits:
• The BRICS alliance remains divided, with India and Brazil reluctant to fully align with Moscow (Chatham House, 2024).
• Russia is increasingly dependent on China, shifting the balance of power in favor of Beijing.
• Sanctions have made Russia’s economy more fragile, forcing it to trade on less favorable terms.
Thus, while Russia is not completely isolated, its diplomatic leverage is weaker than before the war, as traditional allies such as Kazakhstan and Armenia distance themselves from Moscow.
2.2 Europe’s Role and Strategic Positioning
A key issue in the war is Europe’s ability to act as an independent geopolitical player. The conflict has underscored both the EU’s strengths and weaknesses:
2.2.1 European Strategic Dependence on the U.S.
• Europe remains heavily reliant on U.S. military support. The United States accounts for over 70% of total NATO defense spending, making European strategic autonomy difficult (NATO, 2024).
• The war has pushed European countries to increase military spending. Germany has committed €100 billion to defense modernization, while Poland has increased its defense budget to over 4% of GDP (EU Institute for Security Studies, 2024).
• France and Germany advocate for greater European defense independence, but internal EU divisions slow progress on joint military initiatives.
2.2.2 Economic Consequences and Energy Transition
• Europe has successfully reduced dependence on Russian gas, cutting imports from 40% to less than 10% (IEA, 2024).
• High energy costs have led to economic slowdowns, particularly in Germany, but EU economies are adapting through diversification (European Commission, 2024).
• The EU has imposed strong economic sanctions, but enforcement challenges remain, as some member states continue indirect trade with Russia.
2.3 Conclusion: A Partial but Not Absolute Failure
The Western response to the war in Ukraine has had mixed outcomes:
✔ Sanctions have weakened Russia’s economy but not crippled it.
✔ Military aid has helped Ukraine resist but not decisively win the war.
✔ Diplomatic isolation has limited but not entirely cut Russia’s global ties.
However, the war has also exposed Europe’s strategic weaknesses, reinforcing its military dependence on the U.S. and highlighting the challenges of achieving true geopolitical autonomy.
Going forward, Europe must navigate between reinforcing transatlantic ties and strengthening its own strategic independence, while the long-term impact of the war remains uncertain.
Section 3: Europe’s Future in a Multipolar World
3.1 Theoretical Framework: Strategic Adaptation or Continued Decline?
As Europe navigates an era of increasing geopolitical fragmentation, it faces three possible strategic trajectories, each corresponding to a major international relations theory:
1. Realism – To regain global relevance, Europe must increase defense spending, develop independent military capabilities, and assert strategic autonomy in a world dominated by U.S.-China competition (Mearsheimer, 2023).
2. Liberalism – Despite its security dependence, Europe can leverage its economic and regulatory power to maintain influence in global institutions and trade frameworks (Keohane & Nye, 1989).
3. Constructivism – The EU’s future hinges on its ability to redefine its geopolitical identity, overcome internal divisions, and reposition itself strategically in a multipolar world (Wendt, 1999).
Based on these perspectives, four potential scenarios emerge for Europe’s role in the future international order:
1. Scenario 1: Europe Achieves Strategic Autonomy – The EU develops independent military and economic policies, reducing its reliance on the U.S.
2. Scenario 2: Europe Remains a Secondary Actor – The continent continues to follow U.S. leadership, maintaining transatlantic unity but sacrificing strategic independence.
3. Scenario 3: Europe Seeks Rapprochement with Russia – Facing economic and energy pressures, the EU explores a limited détente with Moscow.
4. Scenario 4: Europe’s Fragmentation Accelerates – The EU weakens due to political divisions, economic decline, and growing geopolitical irrelevance.
Each scenario is analyzed below in terms of military, economic, and diplomatic feasibility.
3.2 Scenario 1: Europe Achieves Strategic Autonomy
In this scenario, the European Union pursues an independent geopolitical path by strengthening its military capabilities, economic policies, and diplomatic outreach.
3.2.1 Military Capabilities: Can Europe Defend Itself Without the U.S.?
Currently, the U.S. provides 70% of NATO’s defense spending, including:
• Nuclear deterrence via strategic deployments in Germany, Italy, and Belgium.
• Advanced military technology (missile defense systems, fighter jets, AI-driven warfare).
For Europe to achieve military autonomy, it must:
• Increase defense spending to at least 3% of GDP across member states.
• Develop an independent European Army with centralized command structures.
• Expand domestic arms production to reduce reliance on U.S. weapons.
France has proposed an EU-wide defense initiative, but internal divisions between NATO-loyalist states (Poland, the Baltic countries) and strategic autonomy advocates (France, Germany) complicate implementation (Schmidt & Weber, 2024).
3.2.2 Economic Strategy: Competing with the U.S. and China
To counterbalance BRICS economic expansion, Europe must:
• Strengthen the euro’s role in global trade, reducing reliance on the dollar.
• Expand energy independence, investing in nuclear power and renewables.
• Establish new trade agreements with India, Brazil, and African economies to diversify markets.
However, internal economic fragmentation remains an obstacle:
• Germany’s deindustrialization weakens its ability to drive growth.
• France’s protectionist policies deter foreign investment.
• Southern European debt crises (Italy, Spain, Greece) reduce financial resilience (IMF, 2024).
3.2.3 Diplomatic Initiatives: Expanding Influence in a Multipolar World
To secure strategic autonomy, Europe must:
• Engage with non-aligned nations, balancing relations with the U.S., China, and BRICS.
• Strengthen security partnerships with India, Japan, and ASEAN.
• Rebuild relations with African and Latin American nations through investment in infrastructure and technology.
This scenario is ambitious but challenging, requiring unprecedented political unity and military reorganization within the EU.
3.3 Scenario 2: Europe Remains a Secondary Actor Under U.S. Leadership
In this scenario, the EU maintains its strategic alignment with Washington, prioritizing transatlantic security over independent policymaking.
3.3.1 Military Dependence on the U.S.
Remaining within the U.S.-led NATO structure allows Europe to:
• Avoid massive defense spending increases.
• Maintain access to American intelligence and military technology.
• Preserve transatlantic stability, crucial for security against Russia.
However, this dependence means Europe:
• Lacks influence over U.S. foreign policy decisions.
• Remains vulnerable to shifts in American leadership (e.g., Trump’s skepticism of NATO).
• Faces economic pressure when U.S. interests clash with European priorities (e.g., sanctions on China affecting European trade).
3.3.2 Economic Alignment with Washington
Prioritizing U.S.-Europe trade agreements ensures:
• Continued dollar dominance in global finance.
• Dependence on American energy exports (LNG).
While stable, this scenario limits Europe’s geopolitical flexibility, keeping it subordinate to Washington.
3.4 Scenario 3: A European Rapprochement with Russia
Facing economic and energy pressures, some European leaders may push for diplomatic normalization with Moscow.
3.4.1 Economic and Energy Incentives
• Energy security: Some European policymakers (Germany, Austria) advocate restoring partial Russian gas imports (IMF, 2024).
• Deindustrialization concerns: High energy costs force EU businesses to consider alternative trade partners.
3.4.2 Political and Security Risks
• Eastern European nations (Poland, Baltics) strongly oppose any détente with Russia.
• The U.S. would likely retaliate economically, forcing Europe to choose between Russian energy and American security ties.
• Russia could demand political concessions, such as recognition of Crimea, which remains unacceptable for most EU states.
While economically pragmatic, this scenario is politically divisive and unlikely in the short term.
3.5 Scenario 4: Europe’s Fragmentation Accelerates
The worst-case scenario envisions Europe’s continued geopolitical decline, driven by:
3.5.1 Internal Political Divisions
• The rise of nationalist parties in France, Germany, and Italy weakens EU unity.
• Hungary and Poland increasingly oppose Brussels’ policies, causing institutional dysfunction.
• Potential “Brexit-style” exits from the EU may re-emerge.
3.5.2 Economic Decline
• High energy costs force European companies to relocate to the U.S. and Asia.
• The euro’s declining global role weakens Europe’s financial influence.
• Debt crises in Southern Europe (Italy, Spain, Greece) risk another financial downturn.
3.5.3 Military Irrelevance
• Failure to develop a unified defense strategy leaves Europe fully dependent on NATO.
• Russia and China dominate strategic regions (Middle East, Africa, Indo-Pacific) without European counterbalance.
This scenario would relegate Europe to a passive role, diminishing its global power status.
3.6 Conclusion: Europe at a Crossroads
Europe’s geopolitical future depends on critical strategic choices:
1. Assert Strategic Autonomy – Invest in military, economic, and diplomatic independence.
2. Remain a U.S. Subordinate Ally – Prioritize transatlantic unity at the cost of limited influence.
3. Seek a Compromise with Russia – A pragmatic but politically risky approach.
4. Decline into Fragmentation – Lose global influence and relevance.
The decisions made in the next decade will determine whether Europe remains a power in a multipolar world or fades into irrelevance.
Section 4: Policy Recommendations and Europe’s Long-Term Prospects
4.1 Theoretical Framework: Strategic Adaptation in a Multipolar World
As Europe faces geopolitical marginalization, it must develop comprehensive strategies to maintain relevance in a multipolar world. This section explores three possible policy frameworks:
1. Realist Approach – Strengthening military capabilities and enhancing defense spending to assert strategic autonomy (Mearsheimer, 2023).
2. Liberal Approach – Leveraging economic and regulatory power to shape global norms while maintaining security dependencies (Keohane & Nye, 1989).
3. Constructivist Approach – Redefining European identity to balance multilateral diplomacy with strategic assertiveness (Wendt, 1999).
These approaches inform a set of policy recommendations that could help Europe regain agency in global affairs.
4.2 Policy Recommendations for Strengthening Europe’s Global Role
To counteract declining geopolitical relevance, the EU must implement a cohesive strategy focused on military, economic, and diplomatic dimensions.
4.2.1 Military and Security: Reducing NATO Dependence
Europe’s reliance on U.S.-led NATO security guarantees limits its ability to act independently. While full autonomy is unlikely in the short term, the EU can take steps toward greater self-sufficiency:
• Increase Defense Spending:
• EU member states should raise military budgets to at least 3% of GDP, ensuring independent deterrence capabilities (IMF, 2024).
• Currently, Europe lags behind the U.S. ($877 billion in military spending vs. $270 billion for the EU).
• Develop a Unified European Army:
• A joint EU rapid reaction force would provide operational independence while complementing NATO structures (Schmidt & Weber, 2024).
• France and Germany have advocated for a centralized European defense system, but resistance from smaller NATO-loyalist states has stalled progress.
• Expand the European Defence Fund (EDF):
• Increased investment in domestic arms production will reduce reliance on American-made weapons.
• EU-funded defense R&D can boost technological innovation in cybersecurity, missile defense, and AI-driven warfare.
• Strengthen Non-NATO Security Alliances:
• Expanding strategic partnerships with India, Japan, and ASEAN will diversify Europe’s defense network.
• A stronger European presence in the Indo-Pacific can counterbalance China’s regional dominance.
By gradually reducing dependence on U.S. military protection, Europe can enhance its strategic autonomy while remaining an active player in global security affairs.
4.2.2 Economic Strategy: Competing with the U.S. and China
Europe remains an economic powerhouse, but to sustain global influence, it must adapt to shifting economic trends:
• Strengthen the Euro’s Role in Global Trade:
• Promote euro-based trade agreements to counter BRICS de-dollarization efforts (IMF, 2024).
• The euro’s share in global trade has dropped from 40% to 35%, as emerging economies shift to local currency settlements (Huang & Chee, 2024).
• Expand Energy Independence:
• The EU should accelerate investment in renewable energy, nuclear power, and hydrogen infrastructure.
• Reducing dependence on U.S. LNG and Middle Eastern oil will mitigate external energy vulnerabilities (Gaddy & Ickes, 2024).
• Enhance Trade Relations with the Global South:
• Establish preferential agreements with India, Brazil, and African nations to offset declining influence in Western-dominated markets (World Bank, 2024).
• European companies must diversify supply chains to avoid reliance on Chinese manufacturing dominance.
• Lead in Technological and Industrial Innovation:
• Increased investment in AI, semiconductor manufacturing, and green technologies can boost Europe’s competitiveness against the U.S. and China.
• EU industrial policy must counter deindustrialization trends in Germany and France to prevent long-term economic stagnation.
Without economic modernization, Europe risks falling further behind in global economic realignments.
4.2.3 Diplomatic Repositioning: Regaining Global Influence
Europe’s exclusion from major geopolitical negotiations—such as the U.S.-Russia talks in Riyadh—demonstrates its declining diplomatic leverage. To counteract this trend, the EU must:
• Take the Lead in Global Mediation Efforts:
• Positioning itself as a neutral mediator in conflicts (Ukraine, Taiwan, Middle East) would restore diplomatic credibility (Sakwa, 2024).
• Diversify Strategic Alliances:
• Strengthening diplomatic ties with ASEAN, the African Union, and Latin American blocs will counterbalance Europe’s over-reliance on transatlantic relations (Leonard, 2023).
• Expand Influence in Emerging Markets:
• The EU must actively engage with BRICS nations to prevent further marginalization in global governance institutions (IMF, 2024).
• Develop an Independent Foreign Policy:
• Europe should reduce automatic alignment with U.S. positions in areas like China policy, Middle East affairs, and energy diplomacy.
Without a proactive diplomatic approach, Europe will continue to be seen as a secondary player in global affairs.
4.3 Addressing Internal EU Challenges
For Europe to project external power, it must first overcome internal political and economic divisions.
4.3.1 Overcoming Political Fragmentation
• Strengthen EU Decision-Making Structures:
• Reducing reliance on unanimous voting in foreign policy decisions would allow Europe to act decisively (Schmidt & Weber, 2024).
• Counter Nationalist and Protectionist Trends:
• Enhancing EU cohesion is essential to avoid fragmentation and economic decline (Leonard, 2023).
• Promote Defense Integration:
• Encouraging joint EU military projects (such as a European rapid reaction force) would prevent reliance on bilateral U.S. security deals.
Without internal political unity, the EU will remain geopolitically stagnant.
4.3.2 Strengthening Economic and Industrial Resilience
• Invest in Domestic Manufacturing:
• Revitalizing European industries (particularly in Germany, France, and Italy) would mitigate the effects of deindustrialization (IMF, 2024).
• Reduce Regulatory Barriers to Innovation:
• Streamlining EU bureaucracy would encourage foreign investment and technological advancement (Gaddy & Ickes, 2024).
• Enhance Fiscal Integration:
• Strengthening the Eurozone’s financial stability would prevent future sovereign debt crises that weaken Europe’s economic standing.
Failing to modernize economic structures could accelerate Europe’s marginalization in global markets.
4.4 Conclusion: Can Europe Reassert Its Global Role?
Europe’s geopolitical trajectory depends on bold policy decisions in the coming decade. While the war in Ukraine has exposed strategic vulnerabilities, it also presents an opportunity for Europe to redefine its global role.
Key Takeaways:
1. Military Autonomy – Europe must strengthen defense capabilities to reduce reliance on U.S. security guarantees.
2. Economic Sovereignty – The EU must diversify trade partnerships, invest in energy independence, and reinforce the euro’s global role.
3. Diplomatic Resurgence – Europe must proactively engage in global diplomacy, avoiding passive alignment with U.S.- or China-led initiatives.
4. Internal Cohesion – Addressing political fragmentation, economic stagnation, and nationalist tendencies is crucial for European stability.
The decisions made today will determine whether Europe emerges as a pillar of the multipolar world order or continues its trajectory toward secondary status.
Bibliography:
Brookings Institution. (2024). China-Russia economic ties and their implications. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu
Chatham House. (2024). BRICS and the Russia-Ukraine conflict: Diverging interests. Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org
European Central Bank. (2024). The impact of sanctions on the Russian economy. ECB. https://www.ecb.europa.eu
European Commission. (2024). Economic forecast: The impact of the war in Ukraine on Europe. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/economy-finance
EU Institute for Security Studies. (2024). European military spending and strategic autonomy. EUISS. https://www.iss.europa.eu
Gaddy, C., & Ickes, B. (2024). Russia’s energy revenues and sanctions resilience. Journal of Eurasian Economics, 19(1), 45–68.
Huang, Y., & Chee, W. (2024). The de-dollarization trend and its impact on global trade. Global Financial Studies, 31(2), 78–95.
International Energy Agency (IEA). (2024). Europe’s energy transition and Russian gas dependency. IEA. https://www.iea.org
International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). (2024). NATO’s military stockpiles and the war in Ukraine. IISS. https://www.iiss.org
International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2024). Global economic outlook: Russia’s budget deficit and the impact of sanctions. IMF. https://www.imf.org
Keohane, R., & Nye, J. (1989). Power and interdependence: World politics in transition (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Kofman, M., & Lee, R. (2023). The effectiveness of Western sanctions against Russia. Foreign Policy Analysis, 18(4), 102–126.
Leonard, M. (2023). The future of European geopolitical influence in a multipolar world. European Foreign Affairs Review, 28(3), 245–267.
Mearsheimer, J. (2023). The tragedy of great power politics (Updated ed.). W.W. Norton & Company.
NATO. (2024). NATO’s response to the war in Ukraine: Military aid and strategic realignment. NATO. https://www.nato.int
Observer Research Foundation (ORF). (2024). India-Russia economic ties and energy dependence. ORF. https://www.orfonline.org
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2024). Russia’s GDP growth and global trade shifts. OECD. https://www.oecd.org
RAND Corporation. (2024). The Ukrainian counteroffensive and Russian military resilience. RAND. https://www.rand.org
Sakwa, R. (2024). The future of European diplomacy in a shifting world order. International Relations Review, 41(2), 210–235.
Schmidt, J., & Weber, F. (2024). France and Germany’s push for European defense independence. European Security Studies Journal, 22(1), 115–139.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). (2024). Sanctions and Russia’s military-industrial complex. SIPRI. https://www.sipri.org
UK Ministry of Defence. (2024). Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and Ukrainian military strategy. UK Government. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-defence
Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. McGraw-Hill.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.
World Bank. (2024). Russia’s economic resilience and shifting trade patterns. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org