





































                  Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 1-13 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 
 

 1  

 

 

 

Introduction:  The Ukraine War: A Paradigm Shift in EU-Russian Relations?1 

Joan DeBardeleben, Carleton University 

 

Russia’s war against Ukraine, initiated in February 2022, has brought a sea change in Europe’s 

security landscape and has also contributed to a fundamental reorientation of European Union 

(EU) policies in several areas, most notably security and energy. Russia’s efforts to expand its 

influence in Ukraine and other neighbouring post-Soviet countries have been a persistent feature 

of Russian foreign policy under Vladimir Putin’s leadership. Russia’s intervention in Georgia in 

2008 was a signal of its willingness to use military force to pursue this objective; Russia’s seizing 

and subsequent annexation of the Ukrainian region of Crimea in 2014 was a precursor of Russia’s 

2022 actions. While the Crimean annexation elicited a set of ongoing EU sanctions against Russia, 

the 2022 war also initiated a more fundamental rethinking of the precepts underlying traditional 

EU approaches to foreign policy. The articles in this special issue address the dynamics that have 

driven Russian actions in Ukraine as well as the nature of EU policy changes that have resulted.   

As I suggested in 2018, events leading up to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 opened the 

door to a possible paradigm shift in EU-Russian relations (DeBardeleben 2018). Drawing on Peter 

Hall’s work on policy paradigms (Hall 1993), I proposed the notion of “strategic paradigms” as 

being helpful when referring to how national leaders understand “the configuration of international 

power and the position of the nation within it” (DeBardeleben 2018, 117). With Russia’s attack on 

Ukraine in 2022, leaders of the EU and of most of its member states felt compelled to reassess 

their previous assumptions about the European security landscape and the place of the EU and 

Russia in it, signalling the possibility of a paradigm change. The new situation undermined the 

once-touted vision of an integrated economic space ‘from Lisbon to Vladivostok’ that could 

eventually grow out of a strategic partnership with Russia that had, optimistically, unfolded 

between the EU and Russia in 1999 (Solana 1999). As late as 2013, European Commission 

President José Manuel Durão Barroso had articulated the vision underlying the old paradigm this 

way: “The long-term vision is a common economic and human space from Lisbon to Vladivostok 

with free travel of people, free exchange of goods and services, very close overall cooperation. 

This is our long-term vision” (Barroso 2013). Statements from President Putin before 2014 also 

reflected a similar aspiration for an integrated European economic space (Putin 2010). 

 In contrast, the emerging strategic paradigm involves radically reduced economic and human 

interconnections between Russia and the EU, dissonance on fundamental values, and a securitizing 

of the relationship. Indicative of this change was the acknowledgement in September 2014 by 

Federica Mogherini (soon to take on the post as the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs 

 
1 This article draws on research supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. 

 



                  Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 1-13 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 
 

 2  

 

and Security Policy) that the EU’s strategic partnership with Russia no longer applied (Euractiv 

2014). Since February 2022, the relationship has become securitized and militarized to a degree 

unimaginable just a few years ago; this might have seemed like a worst-case scenario at that time. 

The changes affect all countries in the region. Those that are dependent on Russia for security, 

energy, remittances, or other key resources find themselves in a nearly irreconcilable dilemma, 

trying to balance their security concerns against the costs of alienating either the West or Russia. 

In this adversarial landscape, previous norms regarding diplomatic resolution of conflicts have 

fallen aside, while misinformation and propaganda are rife. Now there is worry about even worse 

outcomes, including the possible use of nuclear weapons on European territory, a major 

catastrophe at Europe’s largest nuclear power plant (located in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine), or an open 

confrontation between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Russia. 

The potential for a paradigm shift that occurred in 2014 was primarily driven by actions on the 

Russian side, which resulted, in large part, from Russia’s attempt to rectify key policy failures that 

threatened to undermine underlying assumptions about identity and national destiny that took on 

prominence in Russia under Vladimir Putin’s leadership (DeBardeleben 2018). First was the 

Russian leadership’s perception that it had not succeeded in gaining recognition as an equal partner 

of the EU, NATO, and the United States (US). Second were difficulties that Russia faced in 

establishing itself as the regional hegemon in its own proclaimed sphere of influence, which 

included most of the post-Soviet space (with the possible exception of the three Baltic states, whose 

admission to the EU had largely been accepted by Russia). The latter problem was exemplified by 

Russia’s failure to successfully draw its most important regional neighbour, Ukraine, into its 

sphere of influence, despite repeated efforts to persuade and compel.  

Russia’s policy failures were accompanied by its leaders’ concerns about NATO’s eastward 

expansion, their rejection of perceived EU assertions of normative superiority, and what Russia’s 

leaders saw as an emerging unipolar geopolitical structure dominated by the US. Russia’s efforts 

to undermine or halt these developments using traditional diplomatic approaches, usual tools of 

economic pressure, and various methods of covert influence had had limited success. Russia saw 

NATO as poised to attempt continued expansion further eastward. The Russian leadership also 

observed the EU as becoming more successful in its efforts to export its values and norms to key 

neighbours, as Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova had all signed Association Agreements and free 

trade agreements with the EU. The US was viewed as continuing its efforts to assert global 

dominance, hypocritically using methods that the Russian leaders considered to be in violation of 

the very international norms and laws that the US proclaimed to support (Lavrov 2022).   

As Hall (1993) suggested in his discussion of change in policy paradigms, policy failure is often 

the trigger for paradigm change. Policy failure can lead to policy experimentation in an effort to 

correct the failure, but if this is unsuccessful, a policy paradigm shift may occur. Such a shift 

involves a redefinition of problems facing the polity, a reconsideration or reframing of goals, and 

significant adjustments in the methods marshalled to achieve these goals. For Russia, 

experimentation involved more assertive measures to secure Russia’s regional dominance, already 

evidenced in its 2008 actions in Georgia and ongoing efforts to gain leverage over other neighbours 

affected by ‘frozen conflicts’ by establishing itself as a mediator and peacekeeper. Russia’s efforts 

to establish regional dominance were further operationalized with the creation of the Eurasian 

Customs Union in 2010 and then with the formation of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) in 

2015. In 2010, the Eurasian Customs Union tightened economic ties between its three founding 



                  Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 1-13 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 
 

 3  

 

members: Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. In 2015, with the creation of the Eurasian Economic 

Union, the mandate was expanded to include a broader spectrum of economic integration 

measures, with Armenia and Kyrgyzstan joining the same year. Russian leaders exerted continuous 

but unsuccessful pressure on Ukraine’s Russia-leaning leader, Viktor Yanukovych, to join the 

EAEU. These efforts failed, and the EU refused to recognize the EAEU as a worthy interlocutor 

(Russell 2017). Voices in the West dismissed this project as an effort to reconstitute the Soviet 

Union (Clover 2012). This all suggested that the experiment had failed to achieve Russia’s desired 

goals of gaining an equal status with the EU and US, and of establishing regional dominance. 

Accompanying the creation of the EAEU, Russia sought to reassert its influence more forcefully 

in the Middle East and Africa and to build a closer strategic relationship with China.  

The EU responded to protestations and actions on the Russian side with ambivalence and 

hesitancy. While the EU’s reaction to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 was, at the time, 

considered strong and unambiguous, it pales in comparison to the measures taken since February 

2022. The response involved a set of progressively intensifying economic sanctions against 

Russian individuals and entities. However, until February 2022, the European Union did not 

engage in a serious reconsideration of its larger strategy toward Russia. These actions reflect what 

Hall identifies as “second order change,” i.e., more than incremental measures, but less than a 

paradigmatic shift: the “[alteration] of … policy without radically altering the hierarchy of goals 

behind the policy” (Hall 1993, 281-82). The EU’s actions, in coordination with the United States, 

Canada, and other allies, used new measures (e.g., progressive sanctions) designed to motivate 

Russia to engage in constructive negotiations to resolve the conflict in eastern Ukraine and to deter 

further aggression. A hope remained that cooperation could be re-established, and that Russia 

could be steered back into compliance with some version of a liberal global consensus.  

To be sure, between 2014 and 2022, EU sanctions on Russia were sustained and augmented; to the 

surprise of some analysts, they were renewed every six months based on member state unanimity 

(Portela et al. 2021; Sjursen and Rosen 2021). In addition, a general freeze in relations with Russia 

was put in place, however, with some notable exceptions. Those exceptions included the 

continuation of cross-border cooperation programs, the involvement of Russians in research 

cooperation, and the eligibility of Russians for participation in programs like the Erasmus + Jean 

Monnet grant competitions. In addition, some informal working groups continued to operate. 

Periodic visits of EU and member state officials to Russia occurred, and consultations between 

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and the EU’s High Representation Mogherini took place on the 

sidelines of international meetings. Alongside criticism of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and 

Russia’s support for separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, the EU maintained civil diplomatic ties 

with the Russian Federation.   

In March 2016, EU member states lent their support to five guiding principles for the relationship 

with Russia that were proposed by Mogherini (Foreign Affairs Council 2016). These principles 

included cooperation with Russia in areas where it is in the EU’s interests, support for the 

implementation of the Minsk II agreement, stronger relations with Central Asian states and eastern 

partner countries, enhanced attention to assuring resilience in the face of new security threats and 

promoting people-to-people contacts. The principles, while introducing a significant revision in 

the EU’s approach to Russia, reflected a resistance to a more fundamental paradigm shift. Change 

in the EU’s Eastern Partnership policy was even more clearly driven by underlying continuity, 

with only incremental adjustments following a 2015 review which did not, however, challenge the 



                  Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 1-13 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 
 

 4  

 

program’s basic assumptions, goals, and mechanisms (DeBardeleben 2021; Ikani 2019).  Overall, 

one can characterize the EU’s reaction to the 2014 Crimean annexation as involving “sustained 

crisis response” in relation to Russia, combined with incremental change in its Eastern Partnership 

policy (DeBardeleben 2021).  

Reflecting an element of continuity in the EU’s approach, the EU’s energy dependence on Russia 

was maintained until the war began in 2022; in fact, but for the outbreak of the war, that 

dependence would likely have remained stable or even increased incrementally over the medium 

term until the EU could achieve its shift to a less fossil fuel-based economic structure. Germany 

supported the development of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which was to provide additional gas 

imports to Europe from Russia. Although this was a controversial measure, strongly opposed by 

some EU member states (Russell 2021), construction proceeded and was completed, awaiting final 

certification by Germany in 2022. At the same time, some change was indicated by the adoption 

of an EU Energy Security Strategy in 2014, reflecting an increased concern with Europe’s energy 

vulnerability. The creation of the Energy Union in 2015 included measures to reduce the risk of 

member state divergence from shared EU norms and regulations in their external energy relations. 

While an overall objective of reducing energy dependence on Russia was widely discussed, the 

main measures to realize this had as much or more to do with climate change policy than with the 

EU’s Russia policy. 

In the security sphere, while there was much discussion of ‘EU strategic autonomy,’ i.e., an 

increased degree of EU self-reliance in the security sphere, only halting steps were achieved. Since 

foreign policy decisions have continued to lie largely within the competence of individual EU 

member states, the EU has struggled to become a unified and effective security actor. Rather, most 

member states have relied on the United States and NATO to ensure their security needs. While a 

few EU members were not NATO members prior to 2022 (Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, 

Malta, and Sweden), most were. In a marked shift, Finland and Sweden applied for admission in 

2022 after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with Finland admitted on April 4, 2022, and Sweden’s 

membership pending as of this writing.   

From 2016, discussions about the importance of a greater EU ‘strategic autonomy’ were fuelled 

just as much by unease over the wavering in US President Donald Trump’s commitment to NATO 

as by a perceived security threat from Russia. The EU took some significant steps to increase its 

security profile, including the activation of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) in 2017 

and related measures to enhance security cooperation between EU member states (Havel 2022). 

But these still relied primarily on member state commitments and contributions. In the meanwhile, 

Brexit weakened the EU’s overall defensive capability.  

So while the EU’s reaction to the events of 2014 was certainly stronger than it had been to Russia’s 

military intervention in Georgia in 2008, it still reflected an aspiration to re-normalize relations 

with Russia within the EU’s existing policy paradigm, namely bringing Russia back into the 

mainstream of the liberal world order, premised on economic interdependence, with energy being 

at the heart of these efforts.  

In the period from 2014 to 2021, this mixed approach, reflecting both elements of continuity and 

change, was mirrored by other Western actors, as diplomatic efforts continued with the goal of 

resolving outstanding conflicts. In the late 1990s, Russia had been admitted as a member of the 

G7 (renamed the G8), a group of leading industrialized democracies (United States, Canada, 



                  Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 1-13 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 
 

 5  

 

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom). This reinforced Russia’s international 

stature and also reflected a hope and belief that Russia was on the path to joining the liberal 

democratic economic order. In 2014, Russia’s participation in the G8 was suspended in response 

to the Crimean annexation, and the organization reverted to calling itself the G7. However, Russia 

still sat in several other international bodies, such as the Council of Europe and Arctic Council, 

even taking on the chair of the latter body in 2021. Other diplomatic efforts involving the West 

and Russia included the high-level meetings in Minsk that led to the 2015 Minsk II agreement, 

which had the goal of charting a peaceful way out of the low-grade war that was ongoing in eastern 

Ukraine; it was never effectively implemented.  Meetings of the NATO-Russian Council were 

resumed in July 2016 (NATO 2022). 

These efforts were abruptly interrupted by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The 

new situation that has emerged since February 2022 sets an uncertain trajectory for security in 

Europe. NATO has been strengthened as the guarantor of European security, with additional troops 

sent to the eastern flank to provide security guarantees.  But the depth and sustainability of the 

US’s role in safeguarding European security still remains uncertain, especially due to rising 

concerns about China in US foreign policy circles. Close ties between Russia and China that have 

emerged since the war started introduce further global uncertainty. This uncertainty is reinforced 

by changing geopolitical dynamics on a global scale, reflected in the recent expansion of the 

BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) to include six additional countries 

(Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates), with others 

knocking on the door. Russia’s war on Ukraine and the Western response may well serve as a 

trigger for an accelerated reframing of the whole global security structure.  

While it is clear that a sea change has occurred in Russia’s relationship with the West and with its 

neighbours, the nature of the new paradigm governing the EU-Russian relationship will take some 

time to assess. A clear change has occurred in the energy sphere, with Russian fossil fuels being 

replaced by a more diverse group of suppliers. The reduction in the EU’s dependence on Russian 

energy resources promises to weaken the role of economic interdependence as a vehicle for 

stabilizing the EU’s foreign policy toward authoritarian states. Concerns about the EU’s economic 

linkages to China are also rising. At the same time, it is clear that the economic and environmental 

costs of the war in Ukraine are immense. The EU’s support for Ukraine’s eventual accession to 

the Union suggests that many of those costs will need to be borne by European nations and their 

citizens. These costs, as well as the risks associated with the continuing conflict with Russia, may 

be weakening support for Ukraine in some EU member states; right-wing extremist movements, 

which are on the rise in several countries, may try to capitalize on these fears. Democratic 

backsliding in countries on the EU’s eastern perimeter, namely Hungary and Poland, may also 

feed nationalist sentiments. All of these factors produce a mix of variables that could affect the 

fundamental nature of the emerging paradigm shift in the EU’s policy toward Russia. 

 

The Special Issue 

This special issue includes articles that provide insight into Russia’s actions in Ukraine and into 

EU reactions to the Russian attack on Ukraine. Three of the five articles contribute to a deeper 

understanding of the conceptual foundation for the strategic paradigm shift in Russian policy, both 



                  Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 1-13 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 
 

 6  

 

leading up to and during the war. The other two articles explore two key elements of EU policy, 

specifically security policy and energy/climate policy, that were deeply impacted by the conflict. 

Russia’s War Against Ukraine 

Many analysts believe that internal developments in Russia itself will be critically important in 

deciding the outcome of the current war in Ukraine and thus also deeply influence how the EU’s 

longer-term approach to Russia will evolve (Meister 2022). Three articles in the special issue help 

to explain potential sources of durability as Russia continues to pursue a war that thus far has 

imposed great costs without achieving its proclaimed objectives.  

In his piece, Tom Casier explores the conceptual frame underlying Russia’s decision to attack 

Ukraine in 2022, looking particularly at identity conceptions. After considering explanations 

rooted in realist theory, resource dependency theory, and critical theory, Casier argues that 

Russia’s decision to attack Ukraine cannot be adequately explained solely on the basis of genuine 

security concerns; rather, it is rooted in “a blend of geopolitical and identity reasoning” that has 

prevailed in Russian leadership circles (Casier 2023, 17). The key notion underlying Russia’s 

action is that “Russia is entitled to being a great power and that it can only be so by being greater 

Russia, a Russia that extends beyond the borders of the Russian Federation and minimally 

encompasses the Slavic core of the former Soviet Union” (18). In exploring reasons for the timing 

of the attack, Casier refers to a radicalization of viewpoint that occurred between 2014 and 2022. 

This radicalization was integrally connected with “failures in Russia’s Ukraine policy,” (21) an 

argument consonant with the paradigm shift analysis provided above. While Casier’s analysis 

suggests strong elements of continuity in Russia’s approach to the geopolitical-identity nexus, it 

also provides an explanation for why this approach became radicalized in such a way as to 

contribute to what could be considered a paradigm shift in EU-Russian relations. 

In their contribution, Liia Vihmand-Veebel and Vijar Veebel use linguistic analysis around the 

Western concept of deterrence to help explain communication mismatches between the West and 

Russia in the period leading up to the war. Specifically, they focus on the ways in which the 

rendering of the concept of deterrence in the Russian language may have contributed to a 

breakdown of understanding. A key purpose of the sanctions put in place against Russia by the 

West after 2014 was to deter further aggression. The 2022 attack demonstrated that deterrence 

failed. Vihmand-Veebel and Veebel argue that, in a general sense, the Russian leadership 

understood that deterrence was a key element of the West’s policy toward Russia both during the 

Cold War as well as more recently. However, they may have misapprehended the exact meaning 

of the concept, which, when rendered in Russian, is blurred by translation difficulties. The absence 

of a single word that can adequately translate the concept into Russian means that the various terms 

used to translate the concept are not fully adequate to capture the notion. In particular, “[a]ll 

Russian translations include the sentiment that the one who is being deterred is the one being 

dominated, controlled, and patronized” (citing Karaganov and Suslov, 2019) (Vihmand Veebel 

and Veebel, 2023, 36). This analysis of the linguistic subtleties of translations and the difficulties 

they create for clear communication makes an important supplement to more traditional analyses 

of the breakdown of relations between Russia and the West after 2014.  

Measures taken by the Western alliance, both in the economic and security spheres, thus far, have 

failed to halt Russia’s aggressive actions against Ukraine. Some analysts believe that sanctions can 

be effective in the longer term, but the mechanism of that impact is debated. Would it be by 



                  Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 1-13 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 
 

 7  

 

triggering discontent (either among the elite or the populace at large) that would lead to domestic 

political change? Or could the sanctions eventually impose such high costs that prosecuting the 

war would become truly problematic for Russia, producing a readiness for a negotiated settlement 

that could eventually be acceptable to Ukraine? We do not yet have the answer to these questions. 

Perhaps ironically, the weaker sanctions that the EU and other Western countries put in place after 

2014 may have provided the Russian leadership with a window to adapt to a lesser reliance on 

Western imports and investment. In the economic sphere, this involved a turn to import 

substitution and the location of alternative economic markets and suppliers. In the political sphere, 

the official public narrative helped to shape public expectations in such a way as to make the 

sanctions palatable. Toms Rostoks’ article provides additional insight into the manner in which 

Russia has sustained its commitment to the war effort, despite these material problems and despite 

the remarkable successes that the Ukrainian military has achieved in defending Ukrainian territory 

despite unfavourable odds. He suggests that the Russian leadership has adopted an approach of 

“outsuffering” the adversary, a strategy reverted to when military force failed to achieve its 

objectives in the earlier part of the war. Rostoks argues that outsuffering “reflects the determination 

of the state to pursue foreign policy objectives even when initial estimations about the likely costs 

of the chosen policy exceed initial calculations by far” (Rostoks, 2023, 55).  In unpacking the logic 

of this approach, Rostoks clarifies under what conditions it may be adopted, as well as conditions 

in which it may fail, exposing some of the vulnerabilities of Russia’s current strategy in Ukraine. 

The Ukraine War and Elements of a New EU Approach to Russia 

As noted above, the picture after February 2022 appears to suggest a radical change in the EU’s 

approach to Russia but still without the definition of a longer-term strategic perspective. This is in 

part because the outcome of the war is not yet clear. Another factor is the difficulty of achieving 

member state unanimity on a long-term strategy. Many of the policies adopted since February 

2022 are only indirectly part of the EU’s Russia policy; rather, they are directed at bolstering 

Ukraine’s defences against Russian aggression. Policies specifically directed at Russia include 

dramatically stronger sanctions, coordinated with partners; severe restrictions on oil imports 

(Eurostat 2023) and a trajectory to radically reduce Europe’s imports of Russian natural gas 

(European Commission 2022); and a deep-freeze in relations with Russia, also across spheres 

previously left intact after 2014. Alongside these policies directed at Russia, the EU has granted 

Ukraine (and Moldova) EU candidate status, opened the EU’s doors to a large inflow of Ukrainians 

seeking refuge from the war, and granted large amounts of humanitarian, economic, and, 

significantly, military assistance to Ukraine. Taken together, all of these measures might suggest 

that a strategic paradigm shift is underway in the EU’s policies toward Russia; on the other hand, 

overall, a clear strategic direction has not been laid out. As before, the EU remains dependent on 

NATO and the United States for its security needs, even as some members, including Germany, 

are taking steps to increase their military capacities. Accordingly, a shift in the trajectory of US 

policy could deeply unsettle the efficacy of NATO’s security guarantee. Discussions of EU 

strategic autonomy have waned but might be back on the agenda in such a scenario. It is also 

unclear how Europe foresees its longer-term relations with Russia—as a perpetual adversary, a 

force to be contained, or a possible partner if domestic changes there allow? Furthermore, member 

state unanimity, even in the medium term, could fade, introducing further ambiguity, as ‘Ukraine 

fatigue’ sets in. 



                  Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 1-13 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 
 

 8  

 

Two of the articles in this special issue address in depth some of the deeper transformative 

trajectories in EU policy that have emerged as the war has unfolded. Luca Ratti looks specifically 

at developments in the sphere of security policy. He highlights three main areas of change. The 

first is a shift from a discourse of crisis management and cooperative security to one emphasizing 

deterrence and defence. Second, for the moment at least, there are lessened worries about US 

disengagement in Europe, and, thus, a decreased urgency regarding EU strategic autonomy. Third 

is an increased awareness of the need for a greater European contribution to transatlantic security. 

Ratti warns that “[r]ather than taking strong US support for granted...EU members should 

strengthen their contribution to the Alliance but also endeavour to rekindle and deepen integration” 

(Ratti, 2023, 85) Ratti’s analysis might raise questions about whether Russia’s war against Ukraine 

will, in fact, trigger a paradigmatic shift in how the EU conducts its security policy, precisely 

because the re-engagement of the US and the strong role of NATO may seem to make European 

strategic autonomy less urgent. A failure, however, to think longer-term could produce a new crisis 

point if US domestic political dynamics bring a shift in US commitment to the alliance. These 

could, for example, be connected to the 2024 election cycle, or to an increased priority placed on 

Asian policy and challenges posed by China. 

In her article, Miranda Schreurs (2023) explores the impact of the Ukraine war on the EU’s energy 

and climate change policies. Measures taken by the European Union to reduce its dependence on 

Russian fossil fuel imports are among the most dramatic effects of Russia’s aggression against 

Ukraine. What began with Germany’s decision to stop the certification process for the Nord Stream 

2 pipeline has evolved into a commitment on the part of EU member states, over time, to wean 

themselves almost completely off Russian energy imports. These decisions pose significant 

economic and societal challenges for the European Union and its member states. In the short term, 

these problems are being managed by a reliance on energy reserves, energy conservation measures, 

the use of other transitional fuels, including coal, and energy sharing between member states. In 

the middle term, the approach is an acceleration of the transition to low fossil fuel energy sources, 

alongside a transitional reliance on LNG imports from other countries, including the United States. 

For some EU member states, nuclear power seems even more attractive than previously and 

intensified efforts to make new fuel sources usable, including hydrogen, have also been pushed, 

including through cooperation with Canada in its development. Schreurs suggests that the EU’s 

response to the Ukraine war may actually provide an opportunity for the EU to intensify its 

response to the developing climate crisis through spurring more assertive measures to reduce fossil 

fuel dependency. Should this prove to be the case, this, in itself, could represent the beginning of 

a paradigm shift in the economic model supporting EU economic prosperity and sustainability. 

Apart from the specific policy elements that Schreurs discusses in her article, the EU’s decisions 

in the energy sphere represent an even more fundamental sea change in the EU’s overall foreign 

policy orientation, which is also being echoed in its approach to China. This is a recognition that 

economic interdependence does not necessarily breed political cooperation and peaceful relations. 

This change may be among the most significant outcomes of the war for the EU. However, what 

is missing at this point is a definition of the alternative approach. If economic interdependence 

does not provide an underpinning of support for peaceful relations, what does? Older concepts of 

‘balance of power’ or ‘containment’ may take hold, but these depend on a strong alliance with the 

US. This leads us back to the questions that Ratti poses about the future direction of EU security 

policy.  



                  Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 1-13 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 
 

 9  

 

The nature of a paradigm shift is rarely clear while it is occurring. At this point, we can see all the 

markings of such a change, but the ultimate direction it will take remains unclear. As regards EU 

policy, elements of continuity may stubbornly persist due to the difficulties of achieving member 

state consensus, as primary foreign policy responsibility still resides there. Nonetheless, the EU’s 

previous resistance to a paradigm change in its relations with Russia has weakened. In terms of 

the EU’s relations with other eastern neighbours, signs of change are clearer, as the door has been 

opened to possible Ukrainian and Moldovan accession, which was previously not under serious 

consideration. New openings are available for EU influence in countries like Azerbaijan and 

Armenia, where Russia’s hold may have weakened as attention has been diverted to Ukraine. The 

geopolitical fault lines in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus are more fragile and malleable than 

previously, providing openings for the EU to operate more geopolitically there. More 

fundamentally, EU leaders are willing to acknowledge and pursue the EU’s geopolitical interests 

alongside its normative commitments, expressed already in 2019 in EU Commission President von 

der Leyen’s statement that “[M]y Commission will be a geopolitical Commission committed to 

sustainable policies” (European Commission 2019). Whether these opportunities will be grasped 

may depend in part on the degree to which the Ukrainian situation, including in the aftermath of 

the war, will preoccupy the EU, both in terms of resources and attention. This, in turn, may help 

set the nature and the depth of the strategic paradigm shift. 

 

  

 

  



                  Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 1-13 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 
 

 10  

 

REFERENCES 

 

Barroso, José Manuel Durão. 2013. “Speech by President Barroso at the Russia-European Union 

– Potential for Partnership Conference: ‘Moving into a Partnership of Choice.’” European 

Commission. Moscow, March 21, 2013. Accessed October 4, 2023. 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/fr/SPEECH_13_249. 

Casier, Tom. 2023. “No Great Russia without Greater Russia: The Kremlin’s Thinking behind the 

Invasion of Ukraine.” Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies 16 (2): 14-29. 
https://doi.org/10.22215/cjers.v16i2. 

Clover, Charles. 2012. “Clinton Vows to Thwart New Soviet Union.” Financial Times. December 

6, 2012. Accessed October 4, 2023.  https://www.ft.com/content/a5b15b14-3fcf-11e2-9f71-

00144feabdc0. 

DeBardeleben, Joan. 2018. “Alternative Paradigms for EU-Russian Neighbourhood Relations.” In 

EU-Russian Relations in Crisis: Understanding Diverging Perceptions, edited by Joan 

DeBardeleben and Tom Casier, 115-136. New York: Routledge.  

———. 2020. “Crisis Response, Path Dependence, and the Joint Decision Trap: The EU’s Eastern 

and Russia Policies after the Ukraine Crisis.” East European Politics 36 (4): 564-585.  

https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2020.1832474. 

Euractiv. 2014. “Mogherini: Russia Is No Longer the EU’s Strategic Partner.” September 2, 2014. 

https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/mogherini-russia-is-no-longer-the-

eu-s-strategic-partner/. 

Eurostat. 2023. “Mar’23: EU Slashes Russian Oil; Emergency Stocks Up.” June 19, 2023. 

Accessed October 4, 2023. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-

news/w/ddn-20230619-3. 

European Commission. 2019. “The Von Der Leyen Commission: For a Union That Strives for 

More.” September 10, 2019.  Accessed October 4, 

2023.https://ec.europa.eu/  commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_5542. 

———. 2022. “REPowerEU: A Plan to Rapidly Reduce Dependence on Russian Fossil Fuels and 

Fast Forward the Green Transition.” May 18, 2022. Accessed October 4, 2023. 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_3131. 

Foreign Affairs Council of the Council of the EU. 2016. “Main Results: Russia.” March 14, 2016. 

Accessed October 4, 2023. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/fac/2016/03/14/. 

Hall, Peter. 1993. “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic 

Policymaking in Britain.” Comparative Politics 25 (3): 275-296. 

https://doi.org/10.2307/422246. 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/fr/SPEECH_13_249
https://www.ft.com/content/a5b15b14-3fcf-11e2-9f71-00144feabdc0
https://www.ft.com/content/a5b15b14-3fcf-11e2-9f71-00144feabdc0
https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/mogherini-russia-is-no-longer-the-eu-s-strategic-partner/
https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/mogherini-russia-is-no-longer-the-eu-s-strategic-partner/
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20230619-3
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20230619-3
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_5542
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_3131
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/fac/2016/03/14/


                  Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 1-13 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 
 

 11  

 

Havel, Sean. 2022. “Strategic Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?” Canadian Journal of 

European and Russian Studies 15 (2): 25-54. https://doi.org/10.22215/cjers.v15i2.3284.  

Ikani, Nikki. 2019. “Change and Continuity in the European Neighbourhood Policy: The 

Ukraine Crisis as a Critical Juncture.” Geopolitics 24 (1): 20-50. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14650045.2017.1422122. 

Lavrov, Sergei. 2022. “Text of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Mr. Sergey Lavrov’s 

Written Message on Indivisibility of Security Addressed to Heads of Foreign/External 

Affairs Ministers/Secretaries of the US, Canada, and Several European countries” (unofficial 

translation). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, February 1, 2022. 

Accessed October 5, 2023. https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1796679/. 

Meister, Stefan. 2022. “A Paradigm Shift: EU-Russia Relations After the War in Ukraine.” 

Carnegie Europe. November 29, 2022. Accessed July 19, 2023. 

https://carnegieeurope.eu/2022/11/29/paradigm-shift-eu-russia-relations-after-war-in-

ukraine-pub-88476.  

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). 2022. “NATO-Russia Council.”  Accessed October 

4, 2023. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50091.htm. 

Portela, Clara, Paulina Pospieszna, Joanna Skrzypczyńska, and Dawid Walentek. 2021. 

“Consensus Against All Odds: Explaining the Persistence of EU Sanctions on Russia.” 

Journal of European Integration 43 (6): 683-99. 

https://doi:10.1080/  07036337.2020.1803854. 

Putin, Vladimir. 2010. “Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft von Lissabon bis Wladiwostok” [Economic 

Union from Lisbon to Vladivostok]. Sueddeutsche Zeitung, November 25, 2010. Accessed  

October 4, 2023. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/putin-plaedoyer-fuer-

wirtschaftsgemeinschaft-von-lissabon-bis-wladiwostok-1.1027908.  

Ratti, Luca. 2023. “NATO and the CSDP after the Ukraine War: The End of European Strategic 

Autonomy.” Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies 16(2):73-89. 

https://doi.org/10.22215/cjers.v16i2.4150. 

Rostoks, Toms. 2023. “Russia’s Strategy of Outsuffering and the War in Ukraine.” Canadian 

Journal of European and Russian Studies 16(2):48-72. 

https://doi.org/10.22215/cjers.v16i2.4130 

Russell, Martin. 2017. “Eurasian Economic Union: The Rocky Road to Integration.” European 

Parliament,  April 20, 2017.  

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/ RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/599432/EPRS_BRI(2017)599

432_EN.pdf. 

 

https://doi.org/10.22215/cjers.v15i2.3284
https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1796679/
https://carnegieeurope.eu/2022/11/29/paradigm-shift-eu-russia-relations-after-war-in-ukraine-pub-88476
https://carnegieeurope.eu/2022/11/29/paradigm-shift-eu-russia-relations-after-war-in-ukraine-pub-88476
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50091.htm
https://doi.org/10.22215/cjers.v16i2.4150
https://doi.org/10.22215/cjers.v16i2.4130
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/599432/EPRS_BRI(2017)599432_EN.pdf
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/599432/EPRS_BRI(2017)599432_EN.pdf


                  Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 1-13 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 
 

 12  

 

———. 2021. “The Nord Stream 2 Pipeline: Economic, Environmental, and Geopolitical 

Issues.” European Parliament. Briefing. July. 

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/690705/EPRS_BRI(2021)690

705_EN.pdf.  

Schreurs, Miranda. 2023. “Implications of the Russian War on Ukraine for Climate Policy and the 

Geopolitics of Energy.” Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies 16(2):90-113. 

https://doi.org/10.22215/cjers.v16i2.2765 

Sjursen, Helene and Guri Rosén. 2021. “Arguing Sanctions: On the EU’s Response to the Crisis 

in Ukraine.” In European-Russian Power Relations in Turbulent Times, edited by Mai’a K. 

Davies Cross and Ireneusz Pawel Karolewski, 59-83. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan 

Press. 

Solana, Javier. 1999. “The EU-Russia Strategic Partnership.” Speech by the High Representative 

designate of the European Union For Common Foreign and Security Policy. Council of the 

European Union. 

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/discours/59417.pdf.   

Vihmand-Veebel, Liia, and Viljar Veebel. 2023. “Linguistic Factor in Deterrence Conversation 

between Russia and the West; If and How Russians Understand the Meaning of 

‘Deterrence?” Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies 16(2):30-47. 

https://doi.org/10.22215/cjers.v16i2.4105 

  

https://doi.org/10.22215/cjers.v16i2.2765
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/discours/59417.pdf
https://doi.org/10.22215/cjers.v16i2.4105


                  Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 1-13 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 
 

 13  

 

Published by the Centre for European Studies at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada 

Available online at: https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/CJERS/index 

 

The Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies (CJERS – formerly Review of European 

and Russian Affairs) is an open-access electronic academic peer-reviewed journal: articles are 

subject to double-blind peer-review. Topics relate to the European Union, its Member States, the 

former Soviet Union, and Central and Eastern Europe. The journal is published by the Centre for 

European Studies, an associated unit of the Institute of European, Russian and Eurasian Studies at 

Carleton University. 

CJERS aims to provide an accessible forum for the promotion and dissemination of high-quality 

research and scholarship.  

 

Contact: 

Carleton University 

The Centre for European Studies 

1103 Dunton Tower 

1125 Colonel By Drive 

Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6 

Canada 

 

E-mail: CJERS@carleton.ca 

Creative Commons License 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 

This Working Paper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No 

Derivs 4.0 Unported License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).  

 

Articles appearing in this publication may be freely quoted and reproduced, provided the source is 

acknowledged. No use of this publication may be made for resale or other commercial purposes. 

ISSN: 2562-8429 

© 2019 The Author(s) 

 

 

https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/CJERS/index
mailto:CJERS@carleton.ca
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

