By: Aleena T Sabu, Research Analyst, GSDN

The French Pensions reform bill signed by French President Emmanuel Macron will come into effect from early September. The bill had received widespread backlash from workers around the country, leading to many protests and unaccounted violent attacks in many parts of the country. The bill was in talks from 2019 with warnings and public backlash, but President Macron continued with his plan to increase the legal retirement age from 62 to 64 along with the number of years needed to be in service in order to be eligible for pensions. He argued life expectancy rates have increased and it is straining the country’s economy. This reform was to come into act from 2019 but got delayed because of the Covid-19 situation prevalent across the world.

Background 

The plans for increasing the retirement age have been in talks in France for years and there have been various motions to set it in place but it always sparked tensions and protests from the people. France is one of few countries in the world which has the lowest retirement age and the highest pensions for decades. This system has persisted for so long that the economy is faltering. Many other European countries like the UK have increased their ages for retirement as it is the only way to match the increasing number of living older population. 

President Macron claims the economy will run into a ditch if the pension reform plans are not put into focus. If the plan is not put into motion, then the economy will have a rundown by 2023 and 2027, although it is said to get back on track by the mid-2030s based on reports by France’s Pension Advisory Council. Although attempts to have any increase have been met only with criticism from the opposition as well as the public. In his first term, President Macron met with criticism for his take on the pension reform plans. Previously, in 1995, the then President Jacques Chirac, planned to increase the age of retirement for some categories of civil servants, but it did not come into effect because it was met with protests with millions of people on the street for the longest period. 2010 was also a year of the marked protests in France over the increase of legal retirement age from 60 to 62. Although it was met with criticism, the government increased the age after the protests subsided after a week. Protestors in France have had success in persuading the government not to make any changes to the pensions bill over the course of years in the country. 

Why people are Protesting?

The people in France have been protesting head on for weeks against the increase in the legal retirement age of workers from 62 to 64. They argue that there is no such case of economic crisis and that the government must not burden people even more. Opponents, which include the left as well as the right and the workers’ union, cite that there is no need for such reforms as they will take away a good two years of retirement from the blue-collar workers instead of increasing the taxes of wealthy people. 

The bill is said to only benefit the rich and will drive the blue-collar workers into more hustling and even lesser chance of living a happy life after retirement. The bill not only increased the age but also increased the number of years required to fulfil the minimum criteria to be eligible for the pension. This has triggered protests in mass numbers in the cites of Paris, Lyon and Nantes. Labour unions estimate an amount of 2 million people to have come for the protests, while France’s interior ministry has estimated a sum of 570,000. People have been looting stores and restaurants, bank windows are smashed and the BlackRock office in Paris has been invaded. The police have responded with teargas. 

The hard-left leader of France, Jean-Luc Melencho says that the protests will continue no matter the outcome of the courts. People are gathering in thousands in Paris and there have been violent attacks and vandalising by the left wing. 

The reform bill has not been popular with the members of Parliament either and they do not want to risk public opinion. The public have always been reluctant to the bill and always protested it whenever it was bought up be it 1995, 2010 or 2019. This made it even more reasonable for the Parliament to not support the bill. 

Macron, on the other hand, believes that the protests will subside after the coming of the decision from the constitutional council, which will decide if the bill needs to be kept in case of a constitutional appeal by another party. He hopes the result will discourage the protests and that the people will understand the need for reforms in the now globalizing world. 

How Macron Pushed through the Reform despite so much opposition?

President Macron faced so much opposition to the reform bill even from the Parliament. So, he decided to move differently around this bill by cancelling the vote. Instead of doing normal parliamentary voting, the President pushed for a controversial special constitutional power. Article 49.3 of the French constitution gives the government the power to bypass the Parliament.

Macron changed the voting method only minutes before the lower house members were about to cast their vote. Macron was in meetings and discussions with political leaders and finally decided to use the extra constitutional power to bypass parliament’s decisions. He explains that the country’s economy is at risk and it cannot be taken lightly. The left and the hard left-wing MPs voiced their opposition in the Parliament by singing the national anthem loudly and asking the President to resign. A vote of no-confidence was called 24 hours after   of Article 49.3 and the President narrowly escaped the no-confidence motion by the vote of 278, it fell short 9 votes as 287 votes. If a no-confidence motion had been a success, then the President had to name a new government or hold new elections. A second no-confidence motion set out by Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally party was also not met with any success.

Pensions in other European Nations

A closer look at the numbers in the European nations will give a better idea of how France stands in comparison to its other neighbours. France has one of the lowest retirement ages among the European nations. The average age is 64.3 across the 27 nations in Europe. The OECD explains that French people spend longer in retirement as their retirement age is lower and the life expectancy of people is longer than in other European nations. A French man spends 23.5 years in retirement, second to Luxembourg’s 24 years and Britain and Germany’s 20 years.
The French spend 14 percent of their economic output on retirement pensions and that is double the OECD average of 7.7 percent. The only two countries spending more than France are Greece and Italy, but this keeps France’s poverty rate at 4 percent compared to other European countries and their gap between the rich and poor is very grim when compared to other nations. The argument which can be made here is not whether France provides a better policy for pensioners, but it depends upon the metric that is used to measure or access the situation.

Moving Forward

France’s President must make decisions ever so carefully now about pensions reform. The judgements and decisions he make will end up having drastic consequences for his people. People are on the streets demanding to take back the reform as they believe it will bring more harm than good, as the President claims. The French pension reforms have always sparked conflicts between the people and the government dating back to history. This clash is always going to be pertinent between the government and the people. Making decisions that will not endanger the common likings of the people as well as the economy is very important for the proper functioning of a country. The French President believes that working a bit longer like their European neighbours could save the country from an economic meltdown, but this is yet to be seen as a study published by a think tank called Rexecode on how the French pensions reform will affect the economy explains that even with the reform, the country will face an economic crisis in the future.

By: Abhyuday Saraswat, Research Analyst, GSDN

Armenia hosted the first ever Trilateral meeting of India Armenia and Iran Format on April 20, 2022 in Yerevan. Yerevan is getting quite close with two increasingly important partners for Armenia as it navigates the geopolitical landscape during a difficult period in its ties with Moscow. The foreign ministries of the three countries focused mostly on economic problems and regional communication lines, but with some defence considerations thrown in for good measure. JP Singh, Joint Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs, led the Indian delegation. Armenia and Azerbaijan are in a constant struggle with each other and with Russia’s recent Special Military Operation in Ukraine it has not been able to get the same sense of security from its warrantor Russia as it enjoyed in the past. Iran in this struggle is aligning itself with Armenia and backing Yerevan. Whereas Russia is currently unable to operate as a weapons supplier, India is being sought as a prospective replacement. This comes at a time when Pakistan, Turkey, and Azerbaijan are stepping up trilateral collaboration.

Armenia-Azerbaijan struggle

The Second Karabakh War, which took place between September and November 2020, was a military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh. The conflict resulted in the loss of many lives and displacement of thousands of civilians. The conflict was triggered by the Armenian military’s attack on Azerbaijani positions in the region on September 27, 2020. Azerbaijan responded with a counter-offensive, which led to intense fighting between the two sides. The conflict was marked by the use of heavy artillery, drones, and other advanced military technology.

The war ended with a Russian-brokered ceasefire on November 10, 2020, which resulted in Azerbaijan regaining control of much of the territory it had lost in the previous conflict in the 1990s. The ceasefire also provided for the deployment of Russian peacekeepers in the region to monitor the situation. But with the ongoing Russia-Ukraine War, Russia “The Warrantor” of peace in the region is not able to provide it.

The recent conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh has been a matter of concern for the international community. The two countries have a long-standing territorial dispute over this region, which has led to several clashes and military confrontations in the past.

The recent escalation of violence in the region has resulted in the loss of many lives and displacement of thousands of civilians. The situation is complex and multifaceted, with several factors contributing to the conflict. The issue of Nagorno-Karabakh is not just a territorial dispute but also involves questions of identity, history and geopolitics.

Iran’s Backing

Iran has historically played a significant role in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Iran shares borders with both Armenia and Azerbaijan and has a large population of ethnic Azerbaijanis living within its borders. Iran has also been a mediator between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the past. Iran has been calling for a peaceful resolution to the conflict and has expressed concern over the recent escalation of violence. Iran has also offered to mediate between the two sides and has been in contact with both Armenia and Azerbaijan to try and find a diplomatic solution to the conflict.

However, Iran’s position on the conflict is complicated by its own internal politics and regional dynamics. Iran has close ties with Armenia and has been a strategic partner for many years. At the same time, Iran is wary of Azerbaijan’s ties with Israel and the United States, which it sees as a threat to its own security.

Zangezur Corridor

The Zangezur Corridor is a proposed transportation link that would connect Azerbaijan and its exclave of Nakhichevan with Turkey, passing through the southern Armenian region of Syunik (Zangezur). The corridor has the potential to significantly boost economic connectivity and regional integration in the South Caucasus. The Zangezur Corridor has the potential to serve as a key trade route connecting Europe and Asia. It could also help to unlock the economic potential of the South Caucasus, which has long been hampered by political tensions and conflict.

However, the corridor is a complex issue, given that it involves several countries with competing interests. The Armenian government has expressed concerns about the potential impact of the corridor on its national security, given that it would pass through a strategic region of Armenia and Iran is backing Armenia considering a threat to its national security as well. At the same time, Azerbaijan and Turkey see the corridor as a vital link for their economic and strategic interests.

India’s Defence Ties

India and Armenia have had a long-standing defense cooperation, with India providing military training and equipment to Armenian armed forces. In 2018, India and Armenia signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on defense cooperation, which included areas such as military training, joint exercises, and exchange of defense-related information. The MoU was aimed at further deepening the bilateral defense ties between the two countries. India has also been a key supplier of defense equipment to Armenia in the past. In 2017, India supplied four SWATHI weapon locating radars to Armenia, which were aimed at enhancing the country’s artillery firepower.

India and Armenia have maintained a strong defense partnership, and it is believed that this partnership will continue to grow in the future with the development of this Trilateral and can be a counter- balance to the Pakistan-Azerbaijan-Turkey Axis.

Boost to Make in India

With Armenia now seeking more defence equipment, this can boost the efforts of self- reliance and “Make in India”. Firstly, it demonstrates India’s growing role as a major defence supplier in the global market. India has been steadily increasing its defence exports in recent years, and this is a testament to its capabilities in this area.

Secondly, the deals will be a boost to India’s “Make in India” initiative, which will aim to promote domestic manufacturing and reduce dependence on imports. By manufacturing defence equipment for export, India can not only earn foreign exchange but also create jobs and boost the domestic economy.

Thirdly, it is a sign of the growing strategic partnership between India and Armenia. India and Armenia have traditionally had friendly relations, and this deal will further strengthen the ties between the two countries.

Scope for Future

There is great potential for cooperation and collaboration between these three countries. Each country has its unique strengths and capabilities that can be leveraged for mutual benefit. In terms of economic cooperation, there are several areas where the trilateral can work together, such as energy, infrastructure, and trade. Iran is a major oil and gas producer, while India and Armenia are major consumers. There is, therefore, scope for energy cooperation, including the development of the North-South Transport Corridor, which will connect India with Central Asia and Russia via Iran and Azerbaijan.

In addition, there is potential for cooperation in the fields of science, technology, and education. The trilateral can work towards the exchange of expertise and knowledge-sharing in areas such as biotechnology, nanotechnology, and renewable energy. Furthermore, the trilateral can also collaborate on regional security issues, particularly with regards to terrorism and extremism. The three countries can share intelligence and coordinate their efforts to counter these threats.

 Overall, the future of this trilateral depends on the willingness of the three countries to work together and overcome any challenges that may arise. With a shared commitment to peace, stability, and development, the India-Armenia-Iran trilateral can be a powerful force for progress in the region.

By: Vaibhav Borude, Research Analyst, GSDN

The rise of China as the world’s factory, aided by globalisation and the active assistance of the United States, had the result that China emerged as the second-largest economy in the world. The path-breaking visit of U.S. President Nixon paved the way for the economic development of China. The superpower rivalry in the Cold War naturally brought the USA and China closer to one another. China used this time to develop its strength. The famous Chinese strategist Sun Tzu’s advice was to “appear weak when you are strong, and appear strong when you are weak.” The Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping based his strategy of “hide your strength, bide your time” on Sun Tzu’s advice to maintain a low profile on the geopolitical world stage. However, the present Chinese president, Xi Jinping, believes that now that China has arrived on the world stage, it must assume the global leadership baton from the US. This rise of China as a geopolitical leader is creating a ripple effect all over the world.

Current China’s profile:

The real GDP of China was $14.27 trillion in 2020. The real GDP of the USA was $20 trillion in 2020. The gap between both countries is closing, and experts believe that China will soon overtake the USA as the world’s biggest economy. China has already overtaken the USA as the world’s biggest economy in PPP terms. The rise of China’s economic profile means that it has more resources to spend on its defence budget and on research and development of new emerging technology. It also has resources for  developing capabilities to deter an adversary from taking any coercive steps against China.

China is changing the rules of the world order.

The current world order is a liberal world order, developed by the USA after World War 2, largely based on the Washington Consensus. China is aiming to disrupt this world order and end the Pax Americana. China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, so any decision can’t be made without its consent. So many countries are dependent on China that any coercive decision is not taken against them. For example, India’s plan to designate Masood Azar as a global terrorist was many times derailed by China due to its support for Pakistan. China has also started to delegitimize international institutions through its actions.

The peculiar case of South China Sea can be seen here. The South China Sea is an important strategic location. One-third of the world’s maritime shipping passes through it, carrying over $3 trillion in trade every year. There are claims of huge oil and natural gas deposits beneath it. Due to its strategic importance, China now wants to transform this world sea into a Chinese lake. China started calming the entire South China Sea on its own based on the 9-dash line. Aggravated by this behaviour, the Philippines filed a suit against China in the Hague Tribunal. The tribunal rejected China’s claims and ruled in favour of the Philippines. Reacting to the decision, the Chinese government rejected this tribunal ruling. The Chinese president, Xi Jinping, said in the ruling that the territorial sovereignty and maritime rights of China would not be affected.”

Use of economic might to create new friends and world dominance.

China is using its offensive charm and power to bring new countries into its sphere of influence. China launched the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to connect Europe and Asia. BRI would help China increase its trade all over the region, thus making them dependent on it. BRI has not only an economic angle but also a strategic angle. The BRI route criss crosses the lands of central China to reach Europe. The route passes through central Asia, Iran, and Turkey, thus ideally fulfilling all the requirement of Mackinder’s view of world dominance. According to Mackinder, one who controls Central Asia controls the world island, and one who controls the world island controls the world. BRI serves as a dual-use facility, as it can increase its trade and also control the region. China is using debt trap diplomacy to increase its economic stakes in the region by providing loans to these projects, and if countries fail to pay them back, it forces them to hand over the infrastructure to China. China has used this method in Sri Lanka’s Hamanbota port. There is also fear of China using the same tactics in Pakistan and Myanmar.

BRI also has a maritime component that includes sea routes connecting China’s coastal regions with the South East Asia, South Asia, the South Pacific, the Middle East, Eastern Africa, and all the way to Europe. With the maritime component of BRI, China can leverage it to increase its naval footprint all over the world’s oceans in lieu of protecting its economic interests. China has built a port in Djibouti and is planning a secret naval facility in the Cocoa Islands of Myanmar. Hidden beneath the maritime component of BRI is the String of Pearls theory, which would encircle the Indian subcontinent from the sea route, thus forcing India into a defensive position. It would also reduce the influence of India in the Indian Ocean, thus affecting India’s position as a net security provider in the Indian Ocean.

China is shifting the balance of power in West Asia away from the United States

West Asia is a significant region in the world. As a source of oil and natural gas, it powers the world economy. West Asia has suffered the worst due to the Gulf wars, the Shia-Sunni conflict, the Saudi Arabia-Iran issue, and the Israel-Palestine issue. The USA has always tried to dominate this region and has favoured Saudi Arabia and Israel against Iran. China has now stepped up its engagement and started taking an active role in resolving the conflict in West Asia. The recent China-brokered deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia shows the “changing global order.” The USA has always had the upper hand in this region, but renewed Chinese engagement is reducing the hegemonic power of the USA in this region. China has also signed a 25-year cooperation agreement with Iran, despite US sanctions against Iran due to its nuclear programme. All this points towards the change from a USA-led world order to a multipolar world order with China as a major competitor for the USA‘s hegemonic status.

China’s Role in the Ukraine War.

The Ukraine-Russia war is the most defining moment of present times. The failure of Russia to checkmate Ukraine and, with the support of western Europe and the USA, Ukraine’s renewed efforts are forcing Putin’s military advances to slow down. The longer the war continues, the weaker Russia will emerge. A weak Russia would make it more dependent on China thus, helping China. It can also be seen as China using the USA’s policy of “beggar thy enemy”.

China’s rise as a geopolitical leader is against India’s interests.

The rise of China as a dominant power in the world order would go against the Indian interests. Firstly, the India-China border dispute is still lingering. India wants to end the dispute as soon as possible, whereas China wants to keep the issue at a standstill. China wants to increase the power differential with India, so when the power differential is at its maximum level, China can use its dominant power to force India to accept the terms and conditions as China says. Secondly, China and Pakistan have an all-weather friendship, and both view India as an adversary. In the event of future conflict, a two-front war with India cannot be ruled out. Thirdly, the USA sees India as a natural partner to balance China. As only India can challenge China on the Asian continent. Hence, the USA has started engagement with India from all sides. USA has re-energised the Quad. USA terms India a net security provider in the Indian Ocean. But in case any conflict emerges, India alone will have to bear the brunt, as India is the only Quad member that shares a land border with China.

As power is a zero-sum game, the rise of China as a geopolitical leader will reduce the power of the USA equally. The changing world order points towards the rise of a multipolar world order. In these changing times, the geopolitical world order appears to be in flux, but China would leave no stone unturned to replace the USA as the world power.

By: Hitti Chopra, Research Analyst, GSDN

The United States of America has been involved in various armed confrontations ranging from conflicts on its own soil to wars in far-off countries. From the American Revolution (1776) to the war on terror, to proxy war with Moscow in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, the US military has been able to prove its ability making it a significant player in many of these conflicts.

The Wars of 18th Century

One of the earliest conflicts the United States was involved in was The American Revolution (1775-1783).The conflict began in 1775, and the United States at the time was a group of British colonies. It was fought between the 13 colonies and Great Britain which sought to maintain control over the colonies. The United States with the help of France ultimately emerged victorious, gaining independence from Great Britain in 1783.

The Wars of 19th Century

The War of 1812 (1812-1815) was fought between the United States and Great Britain over trade destructions and the impressments of American sailors into the British Navy. The US military led by General Andrew Jackson was able to successfully defend against British invasion ultimately leading to the Treaty of Ghent which ended the conflict. The Civil War (1861-1865) was fought between the Union (northern states) and the Confederacy (southern states) over states’ rights and the issues like slavery. The US military, led by General Ulysses S.Grant ultimately defeated the confederacy resulting in the abolition of slavery and the reunification of the country.

The Wars of 20th Century

In the first half of 20th century, the United States was involved in both World War I and World War II.In World War I (1914-1918), the United States entered the conflict in 1917 after several years of neutrality. The war was fought between the Allied Powers (including the US) and the Central Powers over various territorial and economic issues. In World War II (1939-1945), The United States entered the conflict after the attack on Pearl Harbour by Japan. The war was fought between the allied powers and the axis powers over territorial and ideological issues. The conflict lasted from 1939 to 1945 and resulted in the defeat of Germany, Italy and Japan.

In the second half of the 20th century, the USA was involved in the Korean War and the Gulf War. The Korean War (1950-1953), was fought between North and South Korea, with the US and other UN forces supporting the South. The US military led by General Douglas MacArthur, was able to successfully push back North Korean forces and secure a ceasefire resulting in the division of Korea into separate countries.

The Vietnam War (1955-1975), was fought between North Vietnam and South Vietnam, with the US supporting the South. The US military ultimately failed to achieve its goals leading to a withdrawal of US forces and eventual reunification of Vietnam. The Gulf War (1990-1991) was fought between Iraq and coalition of UN forces, including the US over Iraq invasion of Kuwait. The US military was able to successfully liberate and defeat Iraqi forces, resulting in a ceasefire and the establishment of no-fly zones over Iraq. 

The Wars of 21st Century

Since becoming the world’s most powerful country after the two world wars and the Cold War, the United States has followed its interventionist policy in other countries, maintaining its hegemony in the global order. The War on Terror (2001-present) began after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has been fought against various terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. The US military led by various generals has been involved in various conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and other parts of the Middle East (American led intervention in Syria to US naval presence in Yemini civil war) with the goal of reducing terrorist activity and promoting stability in the region.

The United States of America has played a significant role in various armed confrontations throughout history, with its military power and ability to project its influence globally resulting in victories for the United States while some have been more challenging with significant long term implications for the nation and the world.

In today’s international geopolitical dynamics, the United States of America is no longer the only big kid on the block. The proxy war with Russia, icy relationships with China and entire Afghanistan fiasco, the USA singular post cold war dominance is fading, marking the comeback of Great Power rivalry. 

By: Abhyuday Saraswat, Research Analyst, GSDN

The Russia-Ukraine War, which began in 2014 with annexation of Crimea, has had a significant impact on Western Europe in several ways. And with continued aggression and Russia’s “Special Military Operation” launched on February 24, 2022 it has affected both political, military and economic relations between the countries in the region and the world.

Political Relations

The Russia-Ukraine War has had a profound impact on political relations in Western Europe. The conflict has created deep divisions between countries in the region, with some nations supporting Russia’s actions while others vehemently condemn them. Poland and the Baltic states have been particularly vocal in their criticism of Russia, while Italy and Greece have taken a more supportive stance. These divisions have caused significant tension between countries, making it challenging for them to reach a consensus on how to respond to the conflict. As a result, the unity of the European Union has been undermined, which was already facing challenges due to the rise of nationalism and the refugee crisis.

The consequences of this conflict have been far-reaching, with political relations between countries in Western Europe being severely impacted. It is essential for nations to come together and find a way to resolve their differences to prevent further damage to the region’s political stability.

Food Crisis

Wheat, barley, maize and cooking oil are major exports from Ukraine and Russia, mainly to nations in Africa and the Middle East. A compromise was mediated by Turkey and the UN last summer to allow Ukrainian grain to transit via Black Sea ports, but it appears that Russia is still impeding shipments. In addition, Russia is a significant producer of petroleum and fertiliser. In addition to raising food and petrol prices and generating shortages in locations like Chad, Tunisia, and Sri Lanka, disruptions to the flow of these items are aggravating other supply chain and climate concerns.

Economic Crisis

The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has had significant economic consequences for Western Europe. The imposition of sanctions by Western countries in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine has disrupted trade between Russia and the EU. As a result, countries that rely heavily on trade with Russia, such as Germany, have experienced a decline in exports since the sanctions were put in place. Conversely, countries that have been less impacted by the sanctions, such as Italy, have been able to maintain their trade relationships with Russia.

The economic fallout from the Russia-Ukraine War has been far-reaching, affecting not only the countries directly involved but also their trading partners. The sanctions imposed by Western countries have created a ripple effect throughout the global economy, with businesses and industries in Europe feeling the impact. The decline in exports to Russia has been particularly challenging for Germany, which has traditionally had strong economic ties with Russia. However, other countries have been able to weather the storm more effectively, thanks to their diversified trade relationships.

Despite the challenges posed by the ongoing conflict, Western Europe remains committed to finding a peaceful resolution to the crisis. In the meantime, businesses and industries in the region are adapting to the changing economic landscape, exploring new markets and opportunities to maintain their competitiveness. As the situation continues to evolve, it is clear that the economic ramifications of the Russia-Ukraine War will be felt for years to come.

Refugee crisis

The World Health Organization notes that more than 8 million refugees have left Ukraine, making this “the largest movement of people in the European Region since the Second World War.” Russia has forcibly relocated a lot of people. Resources, including those in Poland and Germany’s hospitals and schools, have been strained by others breaking the back of Poland and European public administration system. The same Poland which was previously unwilling to open its border to the Syrian refugee is opening up its border for Ukrainians which clearly shows its subjugation and discrimination between people of colour.

Anger and Protests

The ongoing conflict, coupled with the recent military build-up by Russian forces on the Ukrainian border, have led to a spate of protests in France and Northern Ireland. Many citizens of these countries view the Russian aggression as a threat to European stability and democracy, and thus express their solidarity with Ukraine through large-scale demonstrations. These protests also reflect broader concerns about geopolitical tensions between Russia and the West, as well as anxieties over the potential for another global conflict. As politicians debate how best to respond to Russian aggression, public protests serve as an important reminder of the urgency and gravity of these issues.

Energy Disruption

The conflict has caused a disruption in gas supplies from Russia to Europe, raising concerns about energy security in the region. Germany is the biggest user of gas in Europe, which receives 40% of its supply from Russia. Despite the sanctions, EU nations continued to buy gas. However, Putin’s punitive cuts have roughly 90% decreased supply. Leaders in Europe charge Moscow with “weaponizing” gas supplies.

With the sabotage of Nord-stream pipeline nothing flows form Russia to Europe making Europe shiver in their last winter and facing energy crisis. As a result, several countries in Western Europe have started exploring alternative sources of energy, such as renewable energy, to reduce their dependence on Russian energy and gas.

This shift towards renewable energy is not only driven by the need to ensure energy security but also by the desire to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change. The use of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydro power can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help achieve the goals set out in the Paris Agreement.

The impact of the Russia-Ukraine War on energy security in Western Europe highlights the need for diversification of energy sources and the importance of investing in renewable energy. By doing so, countries can not only ensure their energy security but also contribute to the global effort to combat climate change.

NATO and US

Furthermore, the Russia-Ukraine War has had a significant impact on the security situation in Europe. The conflict has led to increased tensions between Russia and NATO, with both sides conducting military exercises and increasing their military presence in the region. NATO and allies sending weapons to Kyiv and Germany ending its era of pacifism and mass producing for Ukraine. Not only Europe but also Pakistan sending weapons to Ukraine while maintaining relations with Russia is a sign of its hypocrite nature. As a measure of confidence in response to the invasion of Ukraine, Finland joined NATO opposing the previous “Finlandization” by Russia. By doing this, the Western military alliance is extended up to the 800-mile border between Finland and Russia and now NATO is breathing on Russia’s neck.

This has raised concerns about the possibility of a wider conflict, which could have catastrophic consequences for Europe and the world. The war has also highlighted the need for greater cooperation and coordination between European countries in the areas of defence and security.

Takeaway

The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has had a profound impact on Western Europe, with far-reaching consequences that have affected both politics and society. One of the most visible effects of the war has been the surge in the number of migrants and refugees seeking safety in Europe. As violence and instability continue to grip Ukraine, many people have been forced to flee their homes and seek refuge in neighbouring countries.

This influx of refugees has put a significant strain on Western European countries, many of which are already struggling to cope with the ongoing refugee crisis. The resulting tensions have fuelled rising nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment, which has further exacerbated social divisions and created new challenges for policymakers.

Beyond the social impact, the Russia-Ukraine War has also had significant political and economic consequences for Western Europe. The conflict has disrupted trade and raised concerns about energy security, as many European countries rely heavily on Russian gas imports. Additionally, the ongoing conflict has created political divisions within the European Union, with some countries advocating for a more aggressive stance towards Russia while others seek to maintain diplomatic relations.

Despite these challenges, the conflict also highlights the importance of cooperation and unity among Western European countries. As the situation in Ukraine continues to evolve, it is clear that the conflict will continue to have significant consequences for Europe for years to come. By working together and finding common ground, however, Western European countries can help to mitigate the impact of the conflict and build a more stable and prosperous future for all.