How many wake-up calls does Europe need?

Brussels. The foiled attack on Leipzig Airport and Germany’s decision to publicly attribute responsibility to Russia have served as a unifying wake-up call for European leaders, who over the summer appeared to have grown complacent in the face of the threat posed by Vladimir Putin. “Leipzig marks a new escalation on European soil,” said Commission President Ursula von der Leyen: the proliferation of hybrid attacks “is the new normal (…) and this means being ready to respond to Russia’s reckless behaviour more swiftly and effectively”.

EU foreign ministers, in Dublin for an informal meeting, expressed their solidarity with Germany and pledged new sanctions and support for Ukraine. Putin “must understand that the path of a military solution – the attempt to impose his demands by force and also through hybrid means – has failed”, said German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul. “If Russia thinks that threats will divide us, or that they will deter us from supporting Ukraine, it is mistaken. Our unity is unshakeable,” assured NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte during a meeting with von der Leyen.

The Commission President announced that Kyiv has requested to use part of the 90 billion loan from the EU to purchase Patriot interceptors. “Member states are currently examining Ukraine’s request, but I can say that things are moving in the right direction.” The failure of NATO and the EU to provide Kyiv with the interceptors it needs to protect itself from Russian ballistic missiles is an example of the lethargy into which Europeans have fallen in recent months. On Tuesday, the defence ministers of Greece and Spain rejected the request from the High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, to supply the Patriot interceptors lying in their warehouses.

“I believe these hybrid attacks across Europe are also a wake-up call for countries that have not been decisive enough,” Kallas said yesterday ahead of the meeting with foreign ministers. The failed attack in Leipzig “has all the hallmarks of state-sponsored terrorism. The question is: what are we going to do about it?”. Before the summer recess, the EU adopted its twenty-first package of sanctions, but several bans were lifted or watered down to accommodate the demands of certain Member States, determined to preserve their economic advantages: the import of cod, due to opposition from Germany and Portugal; the transport of liquefied natural gas, due to resistance from Greece; and the granting of visas to Russian fighters, due to objections from Italy and France. The attack in Leipzig should lend fresh urgency to the Commission’s efforts, at least regarding visa restrictions, given that one of the Russian operatives entered the Schengen Area on a tourist visa issued by Italy. Poland, the Nordic countries and the Baltic states have been campaigning for months to impose restrictions on tourist visas as well, warning of security risks for the EU posed by the entry of hundreds of thousands of Russians on visas issued by France, Italy and Spain.

The EU’s growing difficulties in reaching agreement on sanctions packages have prompted Kallas to change strategy. Instead of proposing large packages centred on economic measures, the High Representative is opting for targeted measures against individuals and entities to be included on the EU’s blacklist. Over the summer, a proposal was drawn up containing 1,600 names linked to the Russian military industry. Further mini-packages are currently being negotiated amongst the 27 member states: by the end of the month, 27 individuals and entities will be sanctioned for the forced deportation and indoctrination of Ukrainian children. However, the effectiveness of the EU’s blacklists is limited compared with large-scale sanctions packages. Ahead of the Dublin meeting, the foreign ministers of Sweden, Poland, the Netherlands and Spain had written a letter calling for “new options to be explored” regarding the use of the more than €200 billion in Russian assets frozen by the 2022 sanctions. Their use “is not only an important tool for strengthening our support for Ukraine, but also a powerful tool for increasing pressure on Russia”, the four had written. Belgium, where the Russian assets are frozen, continues to oppose the move after having vetoed it in December. Some diplomats are hoping that Euroclear, the Belgian company where the Russian assets are held, will finally decide to divest itself of them, prompting Belgium to transfer them to a special financial company set up by the EU.