Russia is waging an undeclared war against the West, and it is Russia itself that, in its own propaganda materials, claims to be at war with NATO. This is not an official declaration of war, but it demonstrates how Russia perceives the situation and, consequently, how Western countries should view it as well.
This was stated in an interview with the news agency Guildhall by Member of the European Parliament from Germany, Lukas Sieper.
— Mr. Sieper, there is currently a debate about the so-called freezing of the conflict in Ukraine, and Putin’s demands to the Trump administration align with his demands to the Biden administration. The Kremlin wants Ukraine to capitulate, to at least partially give up its sovereignty. And there is no difference between what was demanded three years ago and what is being demanded today. However, some Western politicians, both in the U.S. and in Europe, are proposing to at least partially accept Russia’s conditions for freezing the conflict. How would you assess such proposals, and do you see any threats associated with this?
Mr. Sieper: I believe that these proposals are weak in their essence and very dangerous, because they do not take into account that good things must be fought for. And it is not only to your own benefit to stand up for what is right. Therefore, we must recognize that we live in a world where the aggressive war launched by Russia has negative consequences for us as well. And perhaps if we were to achieve a so-called peace right now, it could benefit us. We might regain access to cheap energy or improve trade relations with Russia, which, of course, is a major player in the world. But we would be abandoning all of our values. That is why I believe we must not do this simply because we might gain something from it ourselves.
And I think such proposals are dangerous because they legitimize Russia’s unjust and illegal demands, which have not changed. The Russians still want to deprive Ukraine of peace. They want to legitimize this blatant violation of all norms of international law that exist, and the pseudo-historical narratives that laid the groundwork for all of this. And if we concede even an inch to Russia, we acknowledge that what they want is acceptable. But it is not, and it never will be.
— Recently, the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) published a report stating that «Russia’s undeclared war against the West is intensifying, using fear, destabilization, and covert operations to undermine NATO, Western unity, and resilience». Do you agree with this assessment that Russia is waging an undeclared war against the West?
Mr. Sieper: It all depends on how you define the term «war». As I said during a plenary session last year: we are in fact in a state of hybrid war with Russia. They are attacking our computer systems, harming our energy infrastructure, and targeting key business figures. Even in the political sphere, we see Russia attacking everything we stand for and value. Although there is no official declaration of war, and guns, missiles, and tanks are not firing at European armies, I believe we are in a state of hybrid war.
Even in our time, it is no longer necessary to declare war as it was done in antiquity — back then, you had to send an official letter to the enemy. How does a war begin today? Certainly, when someone crosses the border of another country, as Russia did with Ukraine. But I believe there is more to it than just these open acts. And I see that Russia is doing exactly that to us — waging an undeclared war. And that’s why I hope we are increasingly coming to the understanding that we must push back if we don’t want them to win.
— Absolutely. As Clausewitz said, politics is the continuation of war by other means. We see that today Russia is attacking key infrastructure, initiating assassinations of individuals in Western countries. So they are definitely waging war…
Mr. Sieper: In their own propaganda materials, they say they are at war with NATO. So, even though this still doesn’t look like an official declaration of war, I think it shows how they see the situation — and therefore how we, in the West, must see the situation, in our own value-based sense, of course.
— Mr. Sieper, so it is not Ukraine that should change its behavior and accept the aggressor’s demands? After all, we are defending ourselves, and it is the Putin regime that must change its aggressive behavior. Why, then, is pressure being put on Ukraine and not on the aggressor? Are there specific levers of pressure on Russia that could be used but have not yet been employed?
Mr. Sieper: I would say: partially. If we look at the overall situation, of course we want Putin to change. And of course, we want Putin to stop. I think there is no doubt about the volume of support — we, as the Western world, are friends of Ukraine. In the future, we may need to exclude the United States from that assessment — we’ll see. But we, as Europe, are definitely friends of Ukraine. However, we must ask ourselves: if we really want Putin’s behavior to change, are we doing enough? And if you ask me, I would say: no. As of today, we are not doing enough. Our support for Ukraine is insufficient and too slow. Remember, at the start of the full-scale invasion, my country — Germany — initially sent just 5,000 helmets.
We remember that very well. Unfortunately, I wish I could forget it, but we still remember. And we will remember. I’m referring to our Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who has a habit of forgetting everything. But as the saying goes — we will not forget. So, at first, it was 5,000 helmets from our side, then we sent small arms, then assault rifles, then light armored vehicles, then tanks, now fighter jets, and a bit later perhaps even missiles (referring to the Taurus missiles — ed.). That’s why I think we need to change our position. If we truly want Putin to stop, we have to go all in, because Russia is going all in.
Russia is pouring billions and billions of rubles and hundreds of thousands of its people into destroying everything they want to conquer. They want to conquer at least Eastern Ukraine, but they’ve destroyed large parts of it. That’s a fact. I believe that if we truly want to change Putin’s behavior, we must escalate our own actions and go all the way — because if we don’t, we may eventually lose everything, and then everything we’ve done will have been in vain. And the suffering and bravery of the Ukrainian people will also have been in vain, and that would be a real tragedy.
— What kind of levers are we talking about? You’ve already mentioned the first one — military aid should be increased in order to put additional pressure on Russia on the battlefield. Let’s move on to other concrete tools. What other levers of influence on Russia are available?
Mr. Sieper: As far as I know, Ukraine is also facing a shortage of manpower, and that’s why I believe we should pay more attention to encouraging volunteers from Europe to take part in the war in Ukraine. I know there’s a Polish battalion. But in Germany, criminal law prohibits fighting abroad. And I believe we, as Germans, should change our law and state that it is prohibited to fight abroad — except in the case of just defense against an aggressive war. Experienced volunteers from Germany should be allowed to fight in Ukraine. This is very important, because it’s not just about German legislation — this is a very typical situation in many other European countries as well. That’s why I believe that if we can provide Ukraine with greater support in terms of human resources, it would be very helpful.
In addition, I recently met with an EU representative from Asia, who told me that sanctions evasion is still a major issue, both in Asian countries and globally. Sanctions are being circumvented through the so-called «shadow fleet» and via certain countries that purchase goods on paper and then send them to Russia. We need to double our efforts in this area.
And where we don’t just need to double but to triple our efforts is in the seizure and freezing of Russian assets. We are still in a situation where Russian companies are investing in Europe, where Russian oligarchs own yachts and mansions here. And considering everything Russia has taken from Ukraine, I believe we must take all of that from Russia.
— Russia is clearly waging a war of attrition, and we in Ukraine need to draw the appropriate conclusions and make adjustments to our strategy. You mentioned Russia’s «shadow fleet», which brought substantial revenue to the Russian budget last year. What should the EU’s ultimate goal be in regard to this «shadow fleet»?
Mr. Sieper: I believe we need to tackle the insurance aspect of the «shadow fleet» vessels. Then we should try to restrict as many of those ships as possible. Since they pass through the Baltic Sea, they must cross waters controlled by EU member states. We won’t be able to stop all of them, but I believe we can restrict at least the majority.
This is a rather abstract answer — and I personally dislike abstract answers — but the European Union is a project built on diplomacy, financial cooperation, and multilateral approaches. Still, we must deal with this issue because that’s our strength. And this is not a matter of finding just one solution. The insurance system won’t be the sole answer. Seizing these vessels won’t be a final solution either. I believe we must leverage Europe’s advantage — its multi-layered capabilities — and then strike under any legitimate pretext. Because this entire «shadow fleet» operation is yet another slap in the face to us and to the measures we’ve taken. It directly harms Ukraine, because the «shadow fleet» finances Russia’s war effort. And it is one of the weapons of hybrid warfare we must counter. We must treat it as such. We can no longer see these ships as just commercial vessels. We need to look at this problem from multiple angles, as it is complex by nature. So unfortunately, there will be no single solution to it.
— Let’s talk about another component of Russia’s budget revenue — the sale of LNG. Recently, the newspaper The Guardian reported that, unfortunately, the EU imported a record volume of liquefied gas from Russia in 2024. How do you assess this problem and what suggestions do you have for its resolution?
Mr. Sieper: It’s a disgrace. This is one of those things where, as Europeans, we say a lot but then fail to live up to our own standards. In one discussion, one, excuse my language, «colleague» from AFD (the far-right party «Alternative for Germany», — ed.) said that my rhetoric and my support for Ukraine were incitement. And that Ukraine is not our ally because they blew up the «Nord Stream-2». I replied that, in my opinion, there are two possibilities. The first is that Russia blew up «Nord Stream-2» under a false flag. The second is that Ukraine blew up «Nord Stream-2», which actually did us a big favor. I believe that we should never again, at least under the current Russian regime, import oil or gas from them in any form.
The fact that LNG imports from Russia are increasing is a disgrace. It’s a big problem because, if we look at Azerbaijan or the countries of the Persian Gulf, honestly, there’s not much to win morally there either. I hope that we use the current developments as a call within our societies to invest more in green energy — solar and wind energy — so that we never again find ourselves in a situation where we need to purchase energy sources from Russia or other autocrats.
— You mentioned the issue of sanction evasion. Recently, Radio Free Europe reported on an investigation showing that the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union — especially Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan — have become centers for evading sanctions against Russia. These countries within the Eurasian Economic Union have a tax-free zone with Russia, and Russians, albeit at a higher price, can easily obtain goods from Western countries. Obviously, it’s necessary to synchronize these sanctions with respect to Russia and the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union. Do you discuss this issue in the European Parliament? And what is the progress on resolving it?
Mr. Sieper: I’ve heard something about this, but not much. I think this also touches on an emotional level. You have to remember that the aggressive war Russia is waging in Ukraine is, of course, a deeply traumatic event for the people of Ukraine, there’s no doubt about that. And at the same time, it also, though not as deeply, traumatizes the rest of the European population. In Germany, there have been many articles in the newspapers stating that for the first time since World War II, German tanks are being used to fight Russian soldiers, which, of course, is not historically accurate, because one third of the Soviet army that fought was Ukrainian, but you get what I mean.
— All this history of Germany against Moscow — that’s Putin’s narrative.
Mr. Sieper: We had a very large dependency on Russia in energy, trade, and many other areas. And now, the rupture of these ties happened completely unexpectedly. Of course, three years is a very long time for people experiencing war. But from a historical perspective, three years is a blink of an eye. So, we had to quickly look for alternatives. And, unfortunately, as I often tell young people, we live in an awful world, where we still have to fight to become better. But we didn’t have many good options. We could have gone to the Gulf countries, which are Islamist monarchies. If you look at it, we could have gone to the US, which we, of course, also did. But there is also a limit on the volume of trade with the US, and we trade a lot with them. Therefore, yes, the countries you mentioned, Azerbaijan, etc., in many ways were the only alternative we could use. Of course, this is not the best option, because they are allies of Russia and help circumvent sanctions. Everyone definitely sees this. We don’t talk about it much because we know that if we sever our ties there too, where can we go? And I just hope that after Ukraine’s victory, we will break these ties as well, create our own energy infrastructure, and punish these states for deceiving us twice, because in the end, that’s exactly what they do.
— I would like to summarize our conversation this way. I have asked you earlier whether the West set itself the goal of changing the aggressive behavior of Putin’s regime. In your personal opinion, did the West really set the goal of Ukraine’s victory in this war?
Mr. Sieper: Yes, absolutely. I think we are hesitating because we are divided into 27 different countries, and it’s not surprising that each of them has different interests, right? Sometimes we don’t live up to our words, but look at the numbers, look at what we have given from our side, and how much diplomatic, financial, and military support we have provided. I have never seen a situation where the West has invested so much in freedom and the defense of a nation, in the idea of democracy. You should never forget that, in the end, we could have simply allowed Ukraine to fall. That’s the truth. Ukraine is not part of NATO. And, of course, there is a reasonable thought that Russia will attack NATO next, but that’s a whole other conversation. And I think that even Putin, in all his madness, understands that he will definitely lose this battle with NATO. But we stood up to defend Ukraine and are increasing our support. Here in the European Parliament, we are constantly holding support events where we welcome representatives from Ukraine.
We wholeheartedly want Ukraine to win. Not all of us, but that’s democracy. That’s freedom. We cannot make everyone be in agreement. But I believe that the majority wants Ukraine to win. I think that’s the only way forward. We must, as I already said, double our efforts. If we truly want this to happen, beyond our dreams and wishes, we need to do more. We must give Ukraine even more. And I hope that one day Ukraine will be able to find peace on its land, on its territory — from Donbas to Crimea, because the courage and will to fight that your people have shown the world will remain an example in history textbooks for a long time.
Taras Moklyak, Guildhall News Agency, exclusive.
Только главные новости в нашем Telegram, Facebook и GoogleNews!
Tweet