The EU -- or, more precisely, its predecessor -- was and continues to be a reaction to past European wars and mutual destruction. This becomes especially clear if one examines the documents and declarations preceding the construction of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). However, an additional characteristic of the EU has been emphasized in recent times by scholars such as Timothy Snyder and Ivan Krastev. The ECSC was formed by former -- at the time, still active -- colonial powers. With the process of decolonialization, the EU was later transformed into a new type of empire, an empire that sought to convince other countries to join based on a regime of rule of law, individual freedoms, and free trade. The conception and ideology of such an “empire” is in strong contrast to the old-fashioned concept embraced by today’s Russia.
The EU and colonialism
As a result of links to their former colonies around the globe, “multiculturalism” -- although often criticized by right-wing political forces -- was a fact of life in the ex-colonial powers that together founded the EU. In fact, the original members of the EU were all -- with the exception of Luxembourg -- colonial states. Later on, additionally to other colonial powers (e.g. Spain, Portugal, Denmark) they were also joined by countries that were in essence neither colonial powers nor colonized countries. Only Greece (and some would say Ireland, too) could be called former colonies, winning its independence through anti-colonial struggle.
After the breakdown of the continent’s last empire -- the Soviet Union -- the EU was enlarged through the addition of new members that had been subjugated or even colonized by Russia in order to form the Soviet Union. Their fight for independence from Moscow’s rule can be understood as an anti-colonial struggle. As a result, some of the countries that later joined the EU were and continue to be opposed to excess interference by EU authorities -- although this argument is often misused for nationalist political aims. Moreover, due to their negative experiences with the former “multicultural” empire of the Soviet Union, these countries range from skeptical to outright opposed to multicultural societies today. The policies of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban are the best example of this attitude, as he continues to demonstrate by underlining his anti-migration position.
What was for the EU’s later member states a step towards independence and freedom was for Russian President Vladimir Putin the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century. According to this logic, Belarus and Ukraine at the very minimum must remain part of the Russian empire. Putin, although free from any communist ideology, has never apologized for the misdeeds or crimes of the Soviet Union. On the contrary, the human rights organization Memorial, which dealt with uncovering these crimes, was never supported, was sidelined and was even recently dissolved.
EU member states themselves took significant time until they were able to recognize and apologize for historical crimes that they committed, paving the way to a new perception of their colonial past. Ideological support of colonialism prevented a clear distancing from past crimes. As Priya Satia writes in Times’s Monster: History, Conscience and Britain’s Empire, “The major forces of that history -- imperialism, industrial capitalism and nationalism -- were justified by notions of progress and thus liable to rationalization about noble ends justifying ignoble means.”
Russia’s neighborhood colonialism
There are still forces -- mostly right-wing -- that express nostalgia for the “good sides” of colonialism. Nevertheless, the EU’s official policies concerning the past are entirely different from Putin’s neo-imperial policies. Russia’s colonialism is markedly different from that of Britain, France, or others: Putin combines imperialism and nationalism but neglects industrial capitalism. He does not care about utilizing oil and gas revenues to modernize and invest in the Russian economy.
Political power at home and in Russia’s neighborhood was and continues to be at the top of Putin’s agenda. Putin is therefore pursuing a traditional line of Russian policies. As Mikhail Shishkin wrote recently in The Atlantic, “The Russian state’s only purpose is to stay in power, and the state has been hammering the Russkiy mir (Russian world) view into people’s brains for centuries: the holy fatherland as an island surrounded by an ocean of enemies, which only the czar in the Kremlin can save by ruling its people and preserving order with an iron hand.”
While Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenka sought to play a double game by agreeing to a union with Russia but delaying its implementation, former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was unable to follow his example. The history of Ukraine, its long-time national aspirations, and its level of democracy were no longer compatible with Moscow’s imperial interests. When Putin started to seize parts of Ukraine -- Crimea and Donbas -- it strengthened Ukrainian opposition to Russian colonization instead of weakening it. Moreover, the onset of Russia’s colonial war in February this year has not only strengthened Ukraine’s national defense but also opposition in the West, including in the EU. The countries that have been most impacted by Russian interference and have a longer history of colonial domination, including Poland and the Baltic states, have demanded the strongest reaction by the EU.
The EU in a new role
The Russian empire in the form of the Soviet Union was built on the basis of the Yalta agreement. Even the outright Soviet invasion of Hungary and Czechoslovakia as well as its threats to Poland were criticized but ultimately accepted by the West; in the end, these were considered “internal” affairs. With the breakdown of the Soviet Union and the newly achieved independence of Eastern European countries, things changed dramatically. The West -- and in particular the EU – were able to meet the interests of the countries that wanted to leave the Russian orbit. In this process, relations with candidate and future member countries took priority. The tumultuous developments inside Russia were not an invitation to think too much about the inclusion of Russia in a new and wider “Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok,” as some politicians and experts hoped. This ultimately proved to be a geopolitical mistake. On the other hand, Russia made no effort to establish a new relationship the countries of Eastern Europe beyond colonialism and dependence. Its dream of a greater Russia stayed alive and even strengthened under Putin and his entourage. An old and backwards-looking Russia was and is opposed to a new and forward-looking Europe, with the exception of far-right movements. Putin has refused to recognize that times have changed.
With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, EU member countries -- some of which have their own histories of pursuing colonial wars or committing crimes including genocide -- were forced to defend the freedom and independence of a country that was attacked because of its unwillingness to be colonized by Russia. As such, it was believed that Ukraine’s defense would win full sympathy by all countries that had to win freedom through their own anti-colonial struggles. Nevertheless, this new role taken up by some EU states did not necessarily cause countries of the Global South to instantly forget their past roles as colonial masters or their neocolonial attitudes. Thus, many countries of the Global South did not vote to condemn Russia at the UN, and many do not blame Russia for the interruption of grain exports from Ukraine and Russia as a result of the war. To support this position, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was dispatched to Africa to explain that Russia is innocent and must continue its “special intervention” to help Ukrainians get rid of their “Nazi” leaders.
Some countries in the EU see themselves so much on the right side of history that they could not understand the “neutral” position taken by leaders of nearly half of the global population after they abstained at the UN vote. But considering not only the history of colonialism but also the continuously unfair distribution of wealth and environmental damages due to emissions by industrial countries, one should recognize that fighting Russia through supporting Ukraine does not result in unequivocal support for the West or the EU in particular.
Global and domestic challenges to the EU’s new strategy
For the EU to be recognized as a world power that combats colonialism in all its forms, it needs a stronger alliance with the Global South. It is important that the EU is now implementing its Global Gateway policy, a new instrument that was designed as a counter-strategy to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. However, when it comes to developing a more effective climate policy, much remains to be done. The promises given to the countries of the Global South remain largely unfulfilled.
In addition to the global challenge that the EU must deal with, it faces the enormous task of convincing its own citizens that it must defend Ukraine in the framework of an anti-colonial struggle. As EU citizens feel the dire consequences of the war, they are increasingly susceptible to arguments against the defense of Ukraine. For many on the right, Russian imperialism is seen as a strength they would like to wield at home. They do not see any advantage to lessening dependence on Russian gas and oil, as the energy transformation is not on their agenda. However, the European right is currently split, and the alliance between the Poland’s PIS and Viktor Orban is strained. The upcoming elections in Italy may result in a new impetus for a shift in EU policies concerning Russia. The right wing is currently split between pro-Russian and anti-Russian contingents, but concerning liberal democracy, they share much in common.
The past colonial policies of some EU countries brought benefits to their own citizens -- albeit to varying extents. But the fight against colonialism in Europe is currently leading to hardships for many Europeans, especially lower-income communities who rely more on fossil fuels for their daily lives. The EU and its member states must therefore fight on both a global and a domestic level to win support if Russia’s invasion is to be stopped. There is already a significant share of EU citizens who just want peace -- irrespective of the conditions. And we need peace, but it must be sought with the goal of giving people the chance to choose their own future.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IIP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.