Last Friday marked the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. A year later we are only in a position to partially assess the ramifications of the war, mostly from an economic point of view.

We are not able to politically predict where this war will land us. We can only make some predictions based on the past economic figures but that is not enough to gauge where President Putin is really heading with his arms aggression. This also in view of the fact he has just pulled out of the New Start nuclear arms treaty.

Prior to the invasion of Ukraine, the EU had not predicted such an outcome. Perhaps they thought President Putin’s call to discuss legal security guarantees was just an act of brinkmanship. Clearly it was not.

Over the years, I remember the EU paralysed over what constitutes military aid, as well as assistance. This relates to the fact that decisions in Council on Common and Foreign Security Policy require unanimity voting.

Indeed, prior to the invasion of Ukraine, the EU was known for its soft power as well as diplomacy. The EU received the Nobel Prize for promoting and establishing peace on European soil.

However, I have seen a different side of the EU since my departure from the Political and Security Committee. In a year, the EU has transformed itself from soft power to provider of military assistance.

Whereas before the invasion of Ukraine, discussions in Council were more in relation to civilian and military missions, with limited and pre-agreed mandates, the EU’s unwavering support for Ukraine is completely unprecedented.

The EU’s assistance to Ukraine could only occur because of the unity that is currently fostered within the transatlantic alliance. Such a situation was not possible under the circumstances of former president Donald Trump’s administration.

Furthermore, the EU is currently assessing its ability to keep on assisting Ukraine, against the backdrop of depleted military stocks and the accompanying economic effects of the war. Through its High Representative Josep Borrell, as well as NATO, the EU is pushing countries to supply Ukraine with military aid as swiftly as possible.

Clearly, we need to assess the rate at which ammunition is currently burned and the replacement rate. Without the US’s assistance, the EU would have been left exposed to security threats and risks that it would not find possible to manage on its own.

Undoubtedly, in terms of common and foreign security policy, the EU is positioning itself as a global actor, especially on military assistance and the push for additional economic sanctions and restrictive measures.

Let’s not forget that the EU is a super-regulatory power and has the ability to paralyse countries financially and economically.

However, such an approach is also coming at the expense of refocusing financial resources otherwise designated for development aid. Member states that were donating money bilaterally for development aid are reconsidering their expenditures so as to redirect the funds for military assistance. 

The EU must assess and redesign its budget lines to redirect funding towards development aid. Perhaps a review of the multiannual financial framework is plausible at this juncture. 

Frankly, I am seeing a different side of the EU. Indeed, the EU of 2023 is not the same EU of 2004. Clearly, the political priorities changed. The principles of democracy remain, but the paths are completely different.

I still believe that diplomacy is the best route to unblock such a complex situation- Clint Flores

Security in Europe is threatened. However, it is crucial to start preparing for how to deal with Russia after this war.

I still believe that diplomacy is the best route to unblock such a complex situation. Those delivering speeches in an escalatory tone do a disservice to the diplomatic work of our forefathers.

We must remember that Russia is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council and in World War II was a crucial player with the Allies to defeat the Axis powers.

Unquestionably, the cost of this war is human pain, as well as economic problems globally, from inflationary pressures to food shortages and interest rate hikes.

To deal with military assistance, the EU has designed different instruments over the past two years. The EU budget cannot finance military aid, and for this reason the EU created the European Peace Facility.

This instrument falls outside of the Multiannual Financial Framework and the funds that each member state contributes are beyond what we are obliged to pay under the Treaty in terms of own resources.

The European Peace Facility was established with a monetary pot of €5 billion. However, the funds were depleted in the first year as they went mostly to assist Ukraine. Additional funds are being requested.

The EU’s current focus on the Eastern part of Europe is also risky. We must not forget the Southern Mediterranean, North Africa, as well as the Sahel Region. These are regions that create instability to Europe’s borders when tensions erupt.

Africa might need additional investment this year to support its populations and to lessen the effects of the global price increases emanating from the war in Ukraine.

A year later, I see a different world. We are living in a new era. The world has changed and we must acknowledge that freedom and security must not be taken for granted in the 21st century. 

Clint Flores is an economist and former ambassador to the Peace and Security Committee.