Russia-Ukraine conflict: What did Europe do wrong?俄乌冲突：欧洲做错了什么？

After the Russian-Ukrainian conflict broke out, even Europe recognized that it was essentially a conflict between Russia and the United States, but third-party Europe became the main victim.

Strategically, Europe has two main losses. One is that it has lost Russia, an important global geopolitical force.This not only results in a significant compression of Europe’s external strategic buffer space, putting it at a disadvantage in the game of great powers, but also because Russia’s cheap energy has a considerable impact on the global competitiveness of the European economy and its ongoing re-industrialization.

The second is to become more dependent on the United States. In the past it was just security and now it is also about energy. In particular, the Baltic countries and most Central and Eastern European countries are completely oriented towards the United States, and Europe’s integration and strategic independence have been severely damaged.

Economically and politically, Europe not only lost Russia’s market, investment and various resources, but also bore the cost of sanctions, aid, and accepting refugees. This has led to high prices in Europe and a sharp decline in people’s purchasing power. All this has triggered social unrest and stimulated the rise of extreme political forces, resulting in serious political consequences.

In the 2024 European Parliament elections, anti-EU and anti-immigration far-right populist parties are rapidly rising.Even in Western European countries with a strong democratic tradition like the Netherlands, the extreme right has become the largest political party, while France is dominated by the extreme left and right. The rise of the far right in Europe is even more unstoppable. This directly threatens the survival of the EU.

Originally, from a global perspective, Europe’s geopolitical situation was the best: the United States simultaneously contained Russia and China, and all parties actively wooed Europe. Europe could play both sides and benefit from all parties.But in the end Europe became the biggest loser.

Europe fails to learn lessons from history

From the perspective of the history of human civilization, Europe is the region where great power wars occur most frequently. It can be said that Europe has accumulated rich experience in how to deal with war and peace and maintain balance among major powers.But just over 70 years after the end of World War II, a hot war involving major powers broke out again in Europe. The main reason is that European politicians have failed to learn from historical experience and lessons and have made the same mistakes over and over again.

From a historical perspective, Europe’s political capabilities reached their peak at the Vienna Peace Conference in 1814 and have been declining ever since.

After Napoleon’s defeat, rebuilding European order became the biggest challenge. There are two core issues: one is how to deal with France. The second is how to deal with the threat posed by the powerful Russia after the war.Such a major and complex issue was perfectly solved by the European political leaders at the time.

The first is to adopt a tolerant policy towards France. In the first Treaty of Paris, France not only did not cede territory and pay compensation, but even received the land it had acquired through expansion until 1792. Even its overseas colonies lost in the war were returned by the Allies, and even the cultural relics they had stolen were able to be retained.

There are three main reasons for this. First, the anti-French alliance realized that a country like France could not be divided, and losing a few pieces of land would not hurt its strength, but it would generate huge feelings of hatred and revenge. France, with so many resources, could recover quickly, which would inevitably lead to renewed war. The current approach can reintegrate France into the post-war European system and become a major country willing to cooperate.

Second, the new French government can also establish its authority domestically and gain the support of the people, so that revolution will not easily occur and will not threaten the stability of Europe again.

Third, France is not the only threat to European peace and security. There is also Russia, which defeated France and replaced France. France can reestablish the balance of power without being weakened and play an important role in balancing Russia.

The second is the establishment of a European coordination mechanism, which includes all major powers. History has also proven that Russia has played an important role in maintaining European order in the following decades.

To put it simply, the Congress of Vienna not only turned enemies into friends, but also brought all major powers into the post-war system, thus maintaining peace in Europe for a hundred years.

However, since then, Europe has never had such wisdom. World War I ended with the defeat of Germany and revolution in Russia. At this time, Europe had completely forgotten the successful experience of the Congress of Vienna: it not only humiliated Germany with very harsh conditions, but also excluded Russia from the new order. The result was a huge sentiment of revenge in Germany. The newly born Weimar Republic could neither develop its economy internally nor defend its sovereignty externally. It was infamous and had no prestige, and was soon replaced by the Nazis.

Isolated Russia can only join forces with Germany repeatedly to seek security. In the end, the even greater catastrophe of World War II broke out just twenty years later. All of Europe was in ruins. Europe’s dominance of the world was also ended.

Originally, Germany established a republic after its defeat in World War I and formulated the best constitution in the world at that time. If Europe can help it achieve stability and prosperity, and establish the authority and legitimacy of its new institutions, it will become part of the European order. As long as it does not exclude Russia, it will always be able to exert its power to check and balance Germany. But during that period, Europe did exactly the opposite.

After the end of World War II, Europe learned lessons from Germany. First, it adopted military occupation and economic assistance to establish a stable Western democratic system. The second is to integrate Germany into NATO, the EU and the Eurozone system instead of treating it as a threat.

Germany, despite its re-emergence as a world economic power and its eventual reunification, is an essential part of Europe’s security and prosperity. However, Europe repeated its historical mistakes towards Russia: Churchill was the first to issue the Iron Curtain Speech, starting the Cold War, and once again excluded Russia.

Only because mankind has entered the nuclear age, there has been no direct hot war, but proxy wars have emerged one after another.

In fact, World War II was very similar to the Napoleonic Wars. One is for France to unify the continent, and the other is for Germany. Both sides invaded Russia under non-aggression treaties, which became the starting point and turning point of their failure. Russia became the most powerful country in Europe after both wars.

However, the Treaty of Vienna was able to integrate Russia into the European system, but it fell into a full-scale Cold War after World War II. What is incomprehensible is that Russia has never tried to unify the European continent, and its strength and threat level were far lower than France and Germany at that time. More importantly, Russia saved Europe twice. However, Europe can incorporate France and Germany into its own system, but it could not treat Russia in this way.

In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed, and Russia, including its institutions, shifted towards the West. But Europe once again made the strategic mistakes it made after World War I. First, it failed to help Russia consolidate its system, especially by refusing to assist Russia when it was in deep economic difficulties.

During this period, the Russian economy shrank by 50%, and financial crises, production crises, budget crises and debt crises occurred one after another. There has been a rare phenomenon in human history of a sharp decline in life expectancy and a decrease in population during peacetime. Only 40% of newborns were ealthy. A once superpower has been reduced to a third world level. In this case, the transplanted Western system, like the Weimar Republic, lost its authority and legitimacy.

Second, it has repeatedly humiliated Russia: it broke its promise and repeatedly expanded eastward, bombed Yugoslavia, which is also a Slavic nation, and supported Chechen separatist forces. In particular, NATO’s eastward expansion poses a serious threat to Russia’s security.

During the German reunification negotiations in 1990, the then US Secretary of State James Baker made the famous promise to the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev who was present at the meeting – “Never expand one inch eastward.”

But in 2004, eight countries in the former Soviet sphere of influence joined NATO, including the three Baltic countries that were once part of the Soviet Union.

Before the Russia-Ukraine conflict occurred, four more countries joined NATO in sequence. NATO even announced that Georgia and Ukraine would be included in NATO. Since NATO implements a one-vote veto system, it is easy for European member states to stop it. But apparently Europe has forgotten Metternich’s famous saying: Great powers cannot be humiliated. It also forgets that Russia is the same as France: it cannot be divided, losing ground cannot hurt its strength, and the country will fight back once it recovers.

In fact, Russia did not reject NATO in its early days. In 2000, when Putin first came to power, he proposed to U.S. President George W. Bush to join NATO. He also said, “Russia is part of European culture, and I can’t imagine my country being isolated from Europe, or from what we usually call the civilized world.” “I want Russia to be part of a safe, stable and prosperous West, because at that time Russia doesn’t have it all.”

Russia’s conditions are nothing more than enjoying the courtesy of a great power: being invited to join instead of queuing up to apply like other countries and “as long as Russia’s views can be regarded as partners’ views on an equal basis.” But was rejected.

This has led to two consequences: First, Russia has returned to its traditional politics. Second, the mutual trust that the two sides had finally established under extremely rare historical conditions was lost. It can be said that the end of World War I, World War II and the Cold War gave Europe the opportunity to re-establish long-term peace – after all, Russia was either an ally or turned to the West. However, Europe not only failed to learn from the success of the Vienna Conference, but instead made the same mistakes again and again. mistake. After creating confrontation with Russia, it eventually led to the recurrence of military conflicts in Europe.

This is why geopolitics master Kissinger has repeatedly emphasized that Europe’s biggest mistake is not including Russia in the common security system. As Hegel famously said: “The only lesson that mankind has learned from history is that mankind cannot learn any lessons from history.” At least this sentence is completely correct for Europe.

Europe makes fatal mistake in Ukraine crisis

Not surprisingly, the EU has repeatedly made fatal mistakes and lacked foresight in dealing with issues related to Russia. It can neither prevent nor end the conflict. As we all know, 2014 was the starting point of confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, the EU has made a huge mistake here.

Ukraine and the EU planned to sign an association agreement in November 2013, but the EU put forward many political and economic conditions. Merely meeting these economic conditions cost Ukraine as much as $20 billion per year, when its GDP was only $133.5 billion.

Ukraine’s fiscal deficit accounts for as high as 8% of GDP (the EU requires it not to be higher than 3%), and a debt of US$15 billion is about to mature. At this time, there is only US$430 million left in the government account. The EU’s demands are clearly far beyond what Ukraine can afford.

Still, Russia-backed President Yanukovych said at the time that Ukraine would “do its best” to meet EU demands and he urged parliament to pass laws to comply with EU standards. However, on November 21, 2013, the Ukrainian Parliament failed to pass the relevant bill. As a result, the Ukrainian government had no choice but to announce the suspension of signing the agreement with the EU and turn to economic cooperation with Russia.

Yanukovych has nothing to blame, both in terms of procedures and actual efforts. However, the failure of the negotiations triggered a pro-EU demonstration movement in Ukraine, and the pro-EU western region even declared independence. At this time, as long as the EU handles it properly, it can still avoid the outbreak of the crisis.

Because Russia at that time also hoped to solve the problem through dialogue and negotiation. To this end, it worked with the EU to make the three opposition parties and Yanukovych reach a compromise: according to the new electoral law, the presidential election will be held in advance in December 2014, a national unity government will be established within 10 days, and the 2004 Constitution will be revised within 48 hours. No state of emergency, an investigation into the violence that occurred during the protests under the supervision of the European Council, the Ukrainian government and the opposition, etc.

It can be said that the Ukrainian government met all the demands of the opposition. Russia’s acceptance shows that it is just seeking to save face at this time. And importantly, the United States also expressed support for the agreement, stating that “the focus must be on concrete actions to implement the agreement, and we will pay close attention to this.”

On February 21, 2014, under the witness of Russian representatives, French Foreign Minister Fabius, German Foreign Minister Steinmeier and all parties signed the agreement.

Just when the world thought the crisis was over, the agreement was immediately torn up by the opposition: the day after it was signed, on February 22, Yanukovych fled under the threat of opposition supporters. —-A few days later, he said at a press conference that he left Ukraine because the personal safety of himself and his family members was threatened. Congress removed him from office on the same day.

What Russia cannot accept is that a democratically elected president it supported was overthrown not by votes but by violence. Second, the agreement that the EU participated in mediation and co-signed turned into waste paper in an instant.

What is even more unacceptable to Russia is that this behavior is supposed to be a challenge and humiliation to all signatory mediators, but the entire West pretends to be deaf and dumb and does not even condemn it. The United States, which originally claimed that it must implement the agreement, said nothing.

Of course, Russia suspects the role of Europe and the United States behind it. Thus began a long conflict, and the EU eventually paid a huge price for all its actions and did not know when it would end.

After the full-scale conflict between Russia and Ukraine broke out in 2022, the West strongly condemned it and imposed comprehensive sanctions on the other. But those who are familiar with European history know that conflicts in Europe are far from being as simple as black and white.

For example, the origin of the Crimean War that broke out 150 years ago was the result of France’s initiative to get rid of the constraints imposed on it by the Vienna System and break the Anglo-Russian alliance: France deliberately used religious issues to “put pressure” on Turkey. Turkey, which was in conflict with Russia, understood this well, but despite its strong protest, it actively cooperated and successfully induced Russia to get involved.

When Russia woke up and wanted to compromise and withdraw, Turkey rarely refused. It eventually became a war between Britain, France, Turkey and Russia, and France also achieved its strategic goals.

What needs to be said is that after the conflict between Russia and Ukraine broke out, Russia sought to negotiate with Ukraine when a quick resolution could not be achieved. Under the mediation of Turkey, Russia made great concessions and the two sides quickly reached a consensus.

This was Europe’s last chance to avoid a war. However, according to Arakhamiya, the parliamentary leader of Ukrainian President Zelensky’s party, in an interview with domestic media “1+1”, he said: “During the negotiations, then British Prime Minister Johnson arrived in Kiev and told Ukrainian officials to continue fighting and not Sign any agreement with Moscow”.

In May 2022, Johnson described his disruptive role in peace talks in Istanbul as reported by the Ukrainian newspaper Ukrainska Pravda.

In addition, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett also exposed for the first time in a nearly five-hour interview with the Israeli media “Channel 12” the process of his shuttle between Russia and Ukraine in early March 2022 to pursue peace negotiations between the two sides.

Although Putin and Zelensky made concessions and agreed to negotiate. He also communicated the progress of mediation to France, Germany and the United States, but was ultimately vetoed by Biden. No matter what the positions of France and Germany were, they obviously failed to stop the United States.

Bennett’s statement also confirmed the speculation of many experts: The United States wants to use the Russo-Ukrainian war to bring down Russia under Putin. Today’s Europe, in the era of great power competition, has found it difficult to dominate and defend its own interests, and has therefore become a battlefield and victim of the competition between the Anglo-Saxon civilization and Russia.

This is the reason why today Europe has repeatedly become a gaming field for major powers and cannot control its own destiny. To get out of this dilemma ,in addition to complete integration and strategic autonomy, Europe must also consider how to mutually beneficial coexistence with Russia.

After all, Russia is so big that there is no place where the enemy can deliver a fatal blow, and no blow can greatly weaken Russia’s strength. The current policy of confrontation between Europe and Russia has no end or future at all. From an interest perspective, without Russia there would be no security in Europe, and it would be difficult for Europe to achieve strategic independence, which would seriously affect its economic competitiveness.

俄乌冲突爆发后，即使欧洲也承认本质上是俄美冲突，但第三方欧洲却成为主要的受害者。

从战略上讲，欧洲主要有两大损失。一是失去了全球地缘政治的重要力量俄罗斯。这不仅导致欧洲外部战略缓冲空间明显大幅压缩，在大国博弈中处于下风，还由于俄罗斯的廉价能源相当程度的影响欧洲经济在全球的竞争力以及正在推行的再工业化。二是对美国更加依赖。过去只是安全现在还加上能源。特别是波罗的海国家、多数中东欧国家完全导向美国，欧洲的一体化和战略自主受到重创。

从经济和政治上讲，欧洲不仅失去了俄罗斯的市场、投资以及各种资源，还承担了制裁、援助、接收难民的成本。导致欧洲物价高涨，民众购买力大幅下滑。这一切又引发社会动荡和刺激极端政治势力的崛起，从而造成严重的政治后果。2024年的欧洲议会选举，反欧盟、反移民的极右民粹主义政党迅猛崛起。即使荷兰这样民主传统深厚的西欧国家极右也成为第一大政党，法国则被极左极右所主导。极右在欧洲的崛起更加势不可挡。这直接威胁到欧盟的存废。

本来，从全球来看，欧洲的地缘政治形势是最好的：美国同时遏制俄罗斯和中国，欧洲成为各方争夺、拉拢的对象，正好可以左右逢源，各方渔利，但何以却成了城门失火的池鱼？

欧洲未能吸取历史经验教训

从人类文明史角度，欧洲是大国战争最为频繁的地区。应该说，如何处理战争与和平、维持大国间的平衡，欧洲积累了丰富的经验。但二战结束不过70多年，欧洲本土再次发生大国卷入的热战。这很重要的一个原因是欧洲政治人物未能吸取历史经验和教训，屡蹈覆辙。历史的看，欧洲政治能力在1814年维也纳和会达到巅峰，此后就一路下滑。

拿破仑战败后，重建欧洲秩序就成了最大的挑战。这其中的核心有二：一是如何处理法国。二是如何应对战后实力强大的俄罗斯带来的威胁。如此重大复杂的问题被当时的欧洲政治领导人非常完美的解决了。

首先是对法国采取宽容政策。第一次《巴黎条约》，法国不但没有割地赔款，甚至还得到1792年为止扩张所获得的土地，就是它在战争中失去的海外殖民地也都被同盟国归还，甚至连抢来的文物也能够保留。

这主要有三方面的原因。一是同盟国意识到法国这样的国家不可能被分割，失去几块土地也伤不了元气，但却会产生巨大的憎恨和复仇的情绪。拥有如此之多资源的法国很快就能恢复，必然导致战争再起。现在的做法则能把法国重新纳入战后的欧洲体系，成为一个愿意合作的大国。二是法国新政府也可以由此在国内树立起权威并得到民众的支持，从而不会轻易发生革命，不会再次威胁到欧洲的稳定。第三法国并不是欧洲和平与安全的唯一威胁，还有击败法国、取代法国的俄罗斯。法国不被消弱就可以重建均势，发挥制衡俄罗斯的重要作用。

其次就是建立了欧洲协调机制，把所有大国纳入其中，历史也证明，此后几十年在维持欧洲秩序上，俄罗斯都扮演了重要角色。

简单讲，维也纳会议不仅化敌为友，而且还把所有大国都纳入战后体系，从而维持了欧洲长达一百年的和平。

然而从此之后，欧洲就再也没有这样的智慧了。第一次世界大战以德国战败、俄罗斯发生革命而告终。此时的欧洲已经完全忘却维也纳会议的成功经验：不但以非常苛刻的条件极大地羞辱了德国，还把俄罗斯排除于新秩序之外。结果就是在德国产生了巨大的复仇情绪，新生的魏玛共和国既不能对内发展经济也不能对外捍卫主权，声名狼藉，毫无威信，很快就被纳粹所取代。被孤立的俄罗斯也只能一再和德国联手，寻求安全。最终不过二十年，更大的浩劫第二次世界大战爆发，整个欧洲成为废墟，也终结了欧洲对世界的主导地位。

本来，德国战败后建立了共和国，制订了当时世界上最好的宪法。只要欧洲能够帮助它实现稳定和繁荣，建立新制度的权威和合法性，它就会成为欧洲秩序的一部分。只要不排斥俄罗斯，它就一直能发挥制衡德国的力量。但欧洲做的却恰恰相反。

二战结束后，欧洲对德国吸取了教训，一是采取了军事占领和经济援助的方式，建立了稳定的西方民主制度。二是将德国纳入北约、欧盟和欧元区体系内，而不是将之视为异己。德国尽管此后重新成为世界经济强国，并最终再度统一，但却是欧洲安全和繁荣的重要组成部分。然而欧洲对俄罗斯却又重复了历史错误：丘吉尔率先发布铁幕演说，吹响了冷战的号角，再次把俄罗斯排斥在外。只是由于人类进入核时代，才没有直接发生热战，但代理人战争此起彼伏。

其实二战和拿破仑战争非常相似。一个是法国一统欧陆，一个是德国。双方都在有不侵犯条约的情况下入侵俄罗斯，并成为它们失败的起点和转折点，战后俄罗斯都成为欧洲最强大的国家。但维也纳条约却能把俄罗斯纳入欧洲体系中，二战后却陷入全面冷战。令人难以理解的是，俄罗斯从没有尝试统一过欧洲大陆，它的实力和威胁程度远低于彼时的法国和德国。更重要的是，俄罗斯还两次拯救了欧洲。可是欧洲可以把法国和德国纳入自己的体系，却不能这样对待俄罗斯。

1991年苏联解体，俄罗斯包括制度都全面倒向西方。可是欧洲又一次犯下一战后的战略失误。一是没有帮助俄罗斯巩固其制度——特别是在其深陷经济困难时袖手旁观。在这个时期，俄罗斯经济缩水百分之五十，接连发生金融危机、生产危机、预算危机和债务危机。出现了人类历史上罕有的和平时期人均预期寿命大幅下降和人口减少的现象，甚至仅有40%的新生儿是健康的。一个曾经的超级大国竟然沦为第三世界水平。在这种情况下，移植的西方制度就如同魏玛共和国一样丧失了其权威和合法性。二是一再羞辱俄罗斯：违背承诺北约一再东扩、轰炸同为斯拉夫民族的南斯拉夫、支持车臣分裂势力。特别是北约东扩严重威胁到俄罗斯的安全。

在1990年的德国统一谈判中，当时的美国国务卿詹姆斯·贝克向与会的苏联领导人戈尔巴乔夫作出了那个著名的承诺——“绝不东扩一英寸”。但2004年，8个前苏联势力范围的国家加入北约，其中包括曾是苏联一部分的波罗的海三国。在俄乌冲突发生前又有三批四个国家加入北约。甚至北约宣布要把格鲁吉亚和乌克兰纳入北约。由于北约实行一票否决制，欧洲各成员国是很容易阻止的。但显然欧洲已经忘了梅特涅的名言：大国不能羞辱。也忘记了俄罗斯和法国一样：不可能被分割，失地也伤不了元气，国力一旦恢复就会反击。

事实上，俄罗斯初期对北约并不排斥。2000年普京执政之初就曾向美国总统小布什提出加入北约，并说“俄罗斯是欧洲文化的一部分，我无法想象我的国家与欧洲隔绝，或者是与我们通常所说的文明世界隔绝。”“希望俄罗斯成为安全、稳定和繁荣的西方的一部分，因为当时的俄罗斯并不拥有这一切。”俄罗斯的条件不过是享受大国礼遇：受邀请加入而不是和其他国家一样排队申请以及“只要俄罗斯的观点能在平等的基础上被视为合作伙伴的观点”。但却被拒绝。

这导致两个后果：一是俄罗斯回归自身传统政治。二是双方好不容易在在极其少有的历史条件下建立的互信就此丧失。可以说一战、二战、冷战结束都给欧洲重新建立长期和平的机会——毕竟俄罗斯要么是盟友要么倒向西方，但是欧洲不但没有借鉴维也纳会议的成功，相反一而再的跌倒于同一条河流，制造和俄罗斯的对立，最终导致欧洲再现军事冲突的局面。这也是为什么地缘政治大师基辛格一再强调欧洲最大的失误就是没有把俄罗斯纳入共同安全体系。正如黑格尔的一句名言：“人类从历史中学到的唯一教训，就是人类无法从历史中学到任何教训。”至少这句话对欧洲是完全正确的。

欧洲在乌克兰危机犯下致命失误

不出意外，欧盟在处理有关俄罗斯的问题上一再犯下致命失误，缺乏远见。既无法阻止冲突也无力结束冲突。众所周知，2014年是俄乌走向对抗的原点，而欧盟的失误在此表现的淋漓尽致。

2013年11月乌克兰和欧盟本计划签署联合协议，但欧盟提出了许多政治和经济条件。仅满足这些经济条件，乌克兰每年付出的代价高达200亿美元，当时它的GDP不过1335亿美元。财政赤字占GDP比重高达8%（欧盟要求不能高于3%），还有150亿美元的债务即将到期，此时政府账户内仅剩4.3亿美元。欧盟的要求显然远远超出了乌克兰的承受能力。

尽管如此，当时俄罗斯认可的亚努科维奇总统表示，乌克兰将“尽最大努力”满足欧盟的要求，他也力劝议会通过法律，以符合欧盟标准。但是2013年11月21日，乌克兰国会未能通过相关法案。于是乌克兰政府只得宣布暂停签署同欧盟的协定，并转向与俄罗斯的经济合作。

无论是从程序还是实际的努力来看，亚努克维奇并没有可指责的地方。但是谈判失败引发了乌克兰亲欧盟示威运动，亲欧盟的西部地区甚至宣布独立。这时只要欧盟处理妥当，仍然能避免危机的爆发。因为当时的俄罗斯也希望通过对话和谈判解决问题。为此它和欧盟一起斡旋使三个反对党和亚努科维奇达成妥协：根据新的选举法提前于2014年12月份总统大选，10天内成立民族联合政府，在48小时内修改2004年宪法，不实行紧急状态，在欧洲理事会、乌克兰政府和反对派监督下对抗议期间发生的暴力进行调查等。可以说乌克兰政府满足了反对派的所有要求。俄罗斯能接受表明它此时也不过是寻求一个台阶罢了。而且很重要的是，美国也对此协议表示了支持，并声称“重点必须放在执行该协议的具体行动上，我们将密切关注这一点。”

2014年2月21日，俄罗斯代表见证下，法国外交部长法比尤斯、德国外交部长施泰因迈尔和各方一起在协议上签字。

就在全世界以为这场危机落下帷幕之际，这个协定墨迹未干就被反对派撕毁：签字后的第二天，即2月22日，在反对派支持者的威胁下，亚努科维奇不得不逃亡——几天后他在记者会上称之所以离开乌克兰是因为自己和亲人的人身安全受到威胁，同一天国会将他罢免。

俄罗斯无法接受的是，一个他支持的民选总统不是被选票而是被暴力推翻。二是欧盟参与斡旋和共同签订的协议竟转眼成了废纸。更令俄罗斯无法接受的是，按说这种行为是对所有签字斡旋方的挑战和羞辱，但整个西方对此装聋做哑，别说反对，连谴责也没有。当初声称必须执行协议的美国更是一语不发。俄罗斯当然怀疑欧美在背后的作用。于是一场漫长的冲突拉开序幕，欧盟最终也为自己的一切付出巨大而且不知何时才是尽头的代价。

2022年俄乌冲突全面爆发后，西方一方面强烈谴责，一方面全面制裁。但熟知欧洲历史的人都清楚，欧洲发生的冲突远非黑白分明这么简单。比如一百五十年前爆发的克里米亚战争其根源就是法国为了摆脱维也纳体系对它的制约，打破英俄联盟而主动出手的结果：故意以宗教问题向土耳其“施压”，和俄罗斯冲突的土耳其心领神会，表面强烈抗议之下却积极配合，成功诱使俄罗斯卷入。待到俄罗斯醒悟想妥协抽身，土耳其却罕见绝不让步，最终成为一场英法土和俄罗斯的大战，法国也由此实现战略目的。

需要说的是，俄乌冲突爆发后，在无法速战速决的情况下，俄罗斯寻求和乌克兰谈判。在土耳其的斡旋下，俄罗斯作出很大让步，双方迅速达成共识。这本是欧洲避免一场战争的最后机会。但根据乌克兰总统泽连斯基所属政党议会领袖阿拉哈米亚在接受国内媒体《1+1》采访所透露表示：“在谈判期间，时任英国首相约翰逊抵达基辅，告诉乌克兰官员继续战斗，不要与莫斯科签署任何协议”。约翰逊在2022年5月由《乌克兰真理报》（Ukrainska Pravda）表示了他在伊斯坦堡中和平谈判中所扮演的破坏角色。

此外前以色列总理纳夫塔利．贝内特也在接受以色列媒体《第12频道》一场近5小时的访问时首次曝光了2022年3月初他穿梭于俄乌之间谋求双方和平谈判的过程。虽然取得普京与泽连斯基各自让步，并同意进行谈判。他同时向法国、德国以及美国沟通斡旋进展情况，但最后被拜登否决。不管法德两国是什么立场，但显然未能阻止美国。贝内特的说法也证实了许多专家的猜测：美国就是想用俄乌战争拖垮普京治下的俄罗斯。今日的欧洲在大国博弈的时代，已经难以主导和捍卫自己的利益，从而成为了盎格鲁撒克逊文明和俄罗斯博弈的战场与牺牲品。

今天的欧洲一再成为大国的博弈场而无法主导自己的命运，根源就在这里。要想摆脱困境，除了完全的一体化和战略自主外，还要考虑如何与俄罗斯互利共存。毕竟俄罗斯太大，根本不存在任何敌人能够予以致命打击的地方，没有任何一种打击能够大大消弱俄国的实力。目前欧洲和俄罗斯对抗的政策根本没有终点和未来。从利益角度讲，没有俄罗斯就没有欧洲的安全，欧洲也难以实现战略自主，并严重影响其经济竞争力。