Qamar Bashir
The imperial ambitions that once propelled European powers across continents in pursuit of territory, wealth, natural resources and geopolitical supremacy have returned to haunt their architects. For centuries, Britain and other European powers accumulated enormous fortunes by exploiting weaker nations, extracting their resources and controlling their political destinies. The collapse of the Soviet Union presented Europe with another historic opportunity: to extend its influence eastward, weaken Russia, surround it strategically and ultimately gain leverage over its immense natural wealth. Yet the grand strategy intended to diminish Russia has produced a spectacular reversal. Russia remains standing, while Europe confronts economic difficulties, political instability, public resentment and the consequences of its own strategic miscalculations.
Karl Marx recognized that capitalism possessed an extraordinary capacity to create an interconnected global economy. Markets, industries, trade routes and financial systems would eventually bind distant societies into a single economic structure. What this expansion produced, however, was an international order characterized by staggering inequalities. Western Europe, North America and Japan accumulated extraordinary wealth, while much of Asia, Africa and Latin America endured colonial exploitation, economic dependency and persistent poverty. The global economy became interconnected without becoming equitable. Its prosperity was concentrated among the powerful, while its burdens were disproportionately imposed upon the powerless.
European colonialism was never merely about planting flags or establishing administrative control. Its central objective was economic extraction. Colonized territories supplied raw materials, cheap labor, captive markets and strategic routes through which imperial powers accumulated wealth. Political domination protected economic privilege, while military superiority enforced submission. The vocabulary of imperialism subsequently changed, but the pursuit of resources, markets and geopolitical advantage remained deeply embedded in international power struggles.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 fundamentally transformed Europe’s strategic landscape. Russia inherited enormous territory, substantial military capabilities, vast hydrocarbon reserves, mineral deposits, agricultural resources and a geographical position connecting Europe with Asia. Its oil, natural gas, coal, precious metals, rare-earth potential and strategic transportation corridors represented extraordinary economic and geopolitical assets. For European strategists, a weakened Russia promised a more favorable balance of power, reduced resistance to Western influence and potentially greater leverage over these resources.
The subsequent enlargement of NATO and the European Union steadily shifted Europe’s political and security architecture eastward. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic entered NATO in 1999. Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and the Baltic states followed in 2004, alongside other countries. Several former Soviet-aligned states also joined the European Union. Western governments presented this expansion as the sovereign choice of countries seeking security and prosperity. Moscow increasingly interpreted the same process as strategic encirclement, the erosion of its regional influence and the gradual construction of a hostile military perimeter.
Ukraine eventually became the most consequential arena of this confrontation. Its geographical position, agricultural wealth, industrial infrastructure, Black Sea access and historical connections with Russia made it strategically indispensable. A Ukraine firmly integrated into Western military structures would fundamentally alter Russia’s security environment. From Moscow’s perspective, the possibility of NATO extending its influence across Ukraine represented a direct challenge to its strategic depth and regional security.
The political upheaval of 2014 intensified these tensions. The overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych, following mass protests and political confrontation, was celebrated in Western capitals as a democratic breakthrough. Russia characterized the change as a Western-supported coup. Western political involvement and support for Ukraine’s subsequent governments reinforced Moscow’s suspicions. Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s election in 2019, however, occurred through a competitive presidential vote, rather than the 2014 uprising. Nevertheless, Ukraine increasingly became the principal battlefield of competing Russian and Western strategic ambitions.
When Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, Europe and the United States mobilized enormous financial, military, diplomatic and economic resources behind Ukraine. Sanctions targeted Russian banks, energy exports, technology access and international financial transactions. Western governments expected sustained economic pressure, combined with Ukrainian military resistance, to weaken Moscow’s ability to continue the war. Some anticipated that economic isolation would eventually undermine Russia’s domestic stability and geopolitical influence.
Instead, Russia demonstrated greater economic resilience than many Western policymakers anticipated. Moscow redirected substantial energy exports toward Asian markets, strengthened commercial relationships with China and India, expanded domestic military production and adapted parts of its financial system to sanctions. China became particularly important as a commercial partner and geopolitical counterweight to Western pressure. Although Russia suffered significant military losses, economic disruption and long-term technological constraints, the anticipated rapid collapse of its economy did not materialize.
Europe, meanwhile, discovered that economic warfare could inflict serious costs upon those deploying it. The reduction of Russian energy supplies forced European industries and households to adjust to a fundamentally altered energy market. Germany’s energy-intensive industrial sector faced particularly severe pressures. Higher energy costs, inflation, expensive defense commitments and uncertainty over industrial competitiveness exposed vulnerabilities within economies accustomed to relatively affordable energy and stable international trade.
The political consequences extended beyond economic statistics. Farmers, industrial workers, transport operators and ordinary households across European countries expressed frustration over living costs, declining purchasing power and government priorities. Demonstrations reflected numerous domestic grievances, but energy insecurity and economic pressures associated with the confrontation with Russia intensified an already difficult environment. Resources committed to military expenditure and foreign strategic objectives increasingly competed with demands for better public services, employment security and affordable living conditions.
Donald Trump’s approach to Ukraine further complicated Europe’s calculations. His insistence that European governments assume greater responsibility for their own security exposed the continent’s longstanding dependence upon American military power. Washington’s shifting commitment created uncertainty over the durability of Western support for Kyiv. Europe found itself confronting the possibility of sustaining an expensive confrontation with Russia without the same degree of dependable American leadership and assistance.
The irony is striking. European powers that once dictated the destinies of distant nations now struggle to control the consequences of their own geopolitical ambitions. A strategy intended to isolate Russia has encouraged Moscow to deepen relationships outside the Western economic system. The emergence of BRICS and the growing influence of China illustrate a broader international movement toward alternative commercial and diplomatic arrangements. The Western monopoly over global economic decision-making is increasingly contested.
Russia has not emerged unscathed, nor has Europe alone determined the course of the conflict. Nevertheless, the confrontation demonstrates the limitations of attempting to impose geopolitical outcomes through military alliances, economic coercion and strategic pressure. The belief that a major nuclear power possessing vast resources, territorial depth and powerful international partnerships could be economically strangled into submission has proved dangerously simplistic.
The lesson extends far beyond Russia and Ukraine. Britain, Europe and the United States must confront the declining effectiveness of imperial habits in a world where formerly subordinated nations possess growing economic, technological and diplomatic influence. Threatening territories, expanding military commitments and attempting to police the international system cannot indefinitely substitute for domestic prosperity and political legitimacy.
The time has arrived for Western governments to abandon the illusion that global supremacy guarantees national well-being. Their foremost responsibility is not to control Russia’s resources, redraw geopolitical boundaries or perpetuate confrontations across continents. It is to improve the lives of their own citizens through affordable energy, productive industries, quality healthcare, education, housing and economic security. Europe attempted to weaken Russia through a geopolitical chess game, only to discover that the board could turn against its own players. The greatest victory now available to Europe and America is not the subjugation of another nation, but the restoration of prosperity, stability and dignity to their own people.
Editorial note: This is a forcefully argued opinion article reflecting your stated thesis. The contention that Europe’s primary objective was to seize Russia’s resources is an interpretation, not an established historical fact. NATO enlargement, the 2014 Ukrainian political transition and the economic effects of sanctions have competing explanations that should be distinguished from documented events before publication.
The writer is Press Secretary to the President (Rtd), Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former Press Attaché to Malaysia and Former MD, SRBC. He is living in Michigan, USA
