This Week in Geopolitics

How the European Union Became Divided on Russia

January 22, 2018

Last week, the prime ministers of Hungary and Bulgaria criticized EU policy toward Russia for being too harsh. The European Union imposed sanctions against Russia in response to Moscow’s intervention in Ukraine, but Hungary and Bulgaria are concerned that the EU’s continued anti-Russia stance could pose a security threat and does not benefit either country.

This difference of opinion on Russia is just a symptom of a broader reality: Europe itself is becoming increasingly divided. As a result, there is no longer a European approach to Russia like there was during the Cold War, when a weak Europe, dependent on the US for its security, acted as one to maintain the US-led containment line. Today, each European country has its own interests determined by its own geographical realities.


Interested in seeing Jeffrey Gundlach, John Burbank, Niall Ferguson and around 20 more experts on one stage?

Here’s your chance to join 700+ attendees in San Diego for the SIC 2018!


Caught in Between

In the case of Hungary, it understands that it has to be part of the Western bloc. Hungary was under Soviet occupation and experienced the suffering that followed its short-lived revolution in 1956 against Soviet rule. Though it understands and appreciates the support that the US provided after the end of the Cold War, it knows that this support is ultimately insufficient to protect it against nearby threats. The US is too far away and, as we saw in Georgia in 2008, the US is primarily concerned with its own interests and might not come to Hungary’s defense if it were truly threatened.

Source: Geopolitical Futures (Click to enlarge)

To Hungary’s east lies Ukraine, a buffer state between the West and Russia. Hungary has generally opposed Ukraine’s developing closer ties with the West. Indeed, when diplomats speak of such integration with the West, Hungary is faced with a critical question: What does “integration” even mean? If it simply means having more diplomatic meetings, why risk rocking the boat with Russia when there is little benefit to Hungary? If integration means greater Western military presence in Ukraine, that would be even worse for Hungary. Russia would see it as a direct threat and would be more inclined to intervene militarily to recuperate its lost buffer space, potentially bringing a Russian military force closer to Hungary’s borders.

Bulgaria, unlike Hungary, has two countries separating it from Russia: Romania and Ukraine. But Bulgaria’s location in the Balkans places it on the historical battle ground between East and West. The country was under Ottoman rule for hundreds of years, though a war between Russia and the Ottoman Empire from 1877 to 1878 made Bulgaria—whose population, like that of Russia, is predominantly Orthodox Christian and Slavic—an autonomous principality.

Bulgaria remained under Ottoman rule but was not directly administered by the Ottomans. Alexander von Battenberg, who was also the nephew of Tsar Alexander II, became the new prince of Bulgaria. The country was subsequently involved in the Balkan Wars in 1912–13, which were fought both between Balkan states and the Ottoman Empire, and between individual Balkan states. During World War II, despite close ties to Russia, Bulgaria sided with the Nazis, not because of any particular cultural affinities but because Bulgaria was weak and unable to resist German power. After the war, Bulgaria became a Soviet satellite and only joined the European Union in 2007.

Bulgaria’s history tells of a place whose sovereignty cannot be taken for granted, and cannot be expected to remain unchanged in perpetuity. Despite its membership in the EU, therefore, it fears both a resurgent Turkey and a Russia that finds itself threatened enough to expand its buffer zone. Though strong ties with the West have their benefits, Bulgaria can’t assume that Europe would be willing or able to defend it from either Turkish or Russian expansion. Like Hungary, Bulgaria gains nothing from taking an adversarial stance toward Russia.

The German Factor

Lying farther west, Germany has fewer security concerns when it comes to Russia than Bulgaria and Hungary have. It does, however, have critical economic concerns. Germany receives a significant amount of oil and natural gas from Russia. In addition, German, Austrian, and French energy companies are engaged in a number of joint venture projects with Russian energy companies. At this point, Russia is too dependent on energy export revenue to be able to pull that lever too hard, but links between German and Russian energy companies mean that sanctions imposed at the United States’ insistence have financial consequences not just for Russia but for Germany as well. This was the reason for the EU's reticence regarding the most recent round of US sanctions on Moscow, which penalized not only Russian energy companies but energy companies of any nationality doing business with Russian companies.

On the other side of the debate, another group of countries, namely Poland and the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), stands firmly in favor of extending sanctions against Russia. Unlike Hungary and Bulgaria, Poland and the Baltic countries all share borders with Russia. (Lithuania and Poland both border Russia’s Kaliningrad outpost, which is separated from the Russian mainland but contains a significant military presence.) During World War II, Poland suffered at the hands of both the Germans and the Russians. In protecting themselves from the Germans, the Russians devastated Poland. After the war, the Soviet Union created the strategic depth it needed to guard against a western invasion by occupying Poland and the Baltic states. For Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, the risk of a Russian invasion is not theoretical—it is living memory.

Fundamental to the Baltics’ fear is the doubt that the rest of Europe and NATO would step in if Russia threatened them. Poland’s fear stems from its location, situated as it is between Germany and Russia, a geography that has had dire consequences for the country in the past. Poland knows that for now, at least, Germany is not capable of military action. Germany is constrained by the institutions of the EU and is better served by not having a substantial military force. But Poland must consider the possibility, however unlikely, that Germany could turn on its EU partners at some point. As we’ve seen in the past, the world can change drastically in 20 years.

The idea of Europe as a single entity is imaginary. The distinct geographies of all these countries and their various business ties guarantee that their own interests will govern their relations with Russia. This will continue to challenge whatever unity remains within the EU, and Russia will take advantage of these divisions at every opportunity it gets.

George Friedman
George Friedman

Discuss This


We welcome your comments. Please comply with our Community Rules.


Dmitri Tchekalkine

Jan. 22, 2018, 4:09 p.m.

The only reason Russia scaremongering continues is because western elites and military industrial complex (US in particular) need to create impression of serious enemy. Otherwise they would not be able to continue to earn billions year in year out. It is said to see such prominent researcher like Friedman and his stuff to fall into this trap. Everyone who is worried about Russia as potential threat should at least read some history, before making unjustified arguments…

Use of this content, the Mauldin Economics website, and related sites and applications is provided under the Mauldin Economics Terms & Conditions of Use.

Unauthorized Disclosure Prohibited

The information provided in this publication is private, privileged, and confidential information, licensed for your sole individual use as a subscriber. Mauldin Economics reserves all rights to the content of this publication and related materials. Forwarding, copying, disseminating, or distributing this report in whole or in part, including substantial quotation of any portion the publication or any release of specific investment recommendations, is strictly prohibited.
Participation in such activity is grounds for immediate termination of all subscriptions of registered subscribers deemed to be involved at Mauldin Economics’ sole discretion, may violate the copyright laws of the United States, and may subject the violator to legal prosecution. Mauldin Economics reserves the right to monitor the use of this publication without disclosure by any electronic means it deems necessary and may change those means without notice at any time. If you have received this publication and are not the intended subscriber, please contact


The Mauldin Economics website, Thoughts from the Frontline, The Weekly Profit, The 10th Man, Connecting the Dots, Transformational Technology Digest, Over My Shoulder, Yield Shark, Transformational Technology Alert, Rational Bear, Street Freak, ETF 20/20, In the Money, and Mauldin Economics VIP are published by Mauldin Economics, LLC Information contained in such publications is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The information contained in such publications is not intended to constitute individual investment advice and is not designed to meet your personal financial situation. The opinions expressed in such publications are those of the publisher and are subject to change without notice. The information in such publications may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. You are advised to discuss with your financial advisers your investment options and whether any investment is suitable for your specific needs prior to making any investments.
John Mauldin, Mauldin Economics, LLC and other entities in which he has an interest, employees, officers, family, and associates may from time to time have positions in the securities or commodities covered in these publications or web site. Corporate policies are in effect that attempt to avoid potential conflicts of interest and resolve conflicts of interest that do arise in a timely fashion.
Mauldin Economics, LLC reserves the right to cancel any subscription at any time, and if it does so it will promptly refund to the subscriber the amount of the subscription payment previously received relating to the remaining subscription period. Cancellation of a subscription may result from any unauthorized use or reproduction or rebroadcast of any Mauldin Economics publication or website, any infringement or misappropriation of Mauldin Economics, LLC’s proprietary rights, or any other reason determined in the sole discretion of Mauldin Economics, LLC.

Affiliate Notice

Mauldin Economics has affiliate agreements in place that may include fee sharing. If you have a website or newsletter and would like to be considered for inclusion in the Mauldin Economics affiliate program, please go to Likewise, from time to time Mauldin Economics may engage in affiliate programs offered by other companies, though corporate policy firmly dictates that such agreements will have no influence on any product or service recommendations, nor alter the pricing that would otherwise be available in absence of such an agreement. As always, it is important that you do your own due diligence before transacting any business with any firm, for any product or service.

© Copyright 2019 Mauldin Economics