There are, perhaps, three unintended consequences of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

First, it seems to have energised the debate over the future of Europe and European integration. Second, it appears to have given the NATO alliance a new lease of life. The third is that geopolitical discussions have made a veritable comeback and a more meaningful debate about Europe’s place in the world.

The last two decades have not been easy for the European Union. The economic fallout from the financial crisis, the migration crisis, the growing disenchantment with established parties and the seemingly impotent response to these situations by European institutions led to a rise in vocal Euroscepticism.

The Conference on the Future of Europe was meant to engage with citizens on critical issues affecting the European public space, and yet the outcome was lacklustre at best. Hampered by a complex set-up and the COVID-19 pandemic, this conference’s conclusions risk articulating only one viewpoint while being weighed down by inter-institutional disagreement.

The war in Ukraine injected a new sense of urgency into the debate on the future of Europe. It demonstrated that, on some fronts, individual member states could not deliver independently. As a result, there has been a growing awareness of the need for coordinated policies in the areas of security and energy to cultivating a Europe which is more resilient and, at the same table, more able to meet the challenges it may face.

The primary debate in Ukraine focuses on two themes that the EU has often tried to downplay – namely, the assertion of national sovereignty and the fulfilment of that sovereign will within the process of greater European integration. This should kickstart a debate on the future of Europe, which is difficult and contentious but has now become existential.

The second unintended consequence concerns NATO. The 31-member alliance remains somewhat anchored in its Cold War set-up and has seemed partially fossilised for decades. Moreover, the lack of commitment in budgeting for some member states has led to some partners questioning their contributions, if not the alliance’s future. Once again, the war has breathed life into this organisation.

Though the United States remains very much the senior and dominant partner, other countries are slowly realising that there are benefits to be gained from being part of this bloc. Sweden reversed its centuries-old policy of neutrality and is pursuing NATO membership, while Finland became the 31st member at the beginning of this month.

However, this new-found lease of life does not come without its risks. Indeed, some fissures within the alliance have become more apparent. Sweden’s membership continues to be held up. Meanwhile, Hungary has shown lacklustre support towards actions directed towards Russia. Other alliance members, such as Bulgaria and Romania, also exercise considerable caution.

A growing and reinvigorated alliance must deal with potential radical differences, particularly as the different geopolitical considerations will prompt different responses.

The war in Ukraine has shown that conflict in Europe had global implications- André DeBattista

The third unintended consequence is that the geopolitical focus has shifted, once again, to Europe. The war has shown that conflict in Europe has global implications. The fear of overspilling from this conflict has led several out-of-area players to take positions.

The discussion over ‘strategic autono­my’ has featured heavily during the past few years. The EU aims to develop a defence policy reflecting its geopolitical rea­lities independent of the United States and China. Articulating such a policy, however, has always been elusive. The war in Ukraine has made this debate more urgent.

Nonetheless, there have been some contradictions. The US has been heavily involved in supporting Ukrainian defences. Meanwhile, China will have some role to play by virtue of being Russia’s closest ally.

The relationship between the EU and China is fragile at the best of times. The European Parliament has called out the treatment of the Uyghur population. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was on record saying that China is “more repressive at home and more assertive abroad”.

At the same time, however, she believes the EU should be pragmatic in its approach while reducing inherent risks in such a relationship of unequals. A tall order if there ever was one.

Other countries with stronger economic ties to China have also advocated for a more pragmatic approach. In his visit to Beijing, French President Emmanuel Macron struck a very conciliatory tone when he told his Chinese counterpart that he knows he can count on him “to bring Russia to its senses and bring everyone back to the negotiating table.”

In an interview given on the flight back to Europe, Macron incensed many in the West when he said that Europe should not get involved in conflicts which are not its own. It should avoid following the US, particularly on contentious issues such as Taiwan’s security.

Nonetheless, there seems to be a tacit consensus that Beijing will have a role in brokering a deal. This will effectively give the People’s Republic of China a more significant role in shaping European security. Whether this would contradict the overall objective of ‘strategic autonomy’ would need to be seen.

Overall, the unintended consequences of this war will need to be addressed. While they may be an opportunity for growth, if mishandled, the effects could be very harmful.

André DeBattista is a political writer and academic.