Russia’s war in Ukraine is eroding Moscow’s influence across multiple regions, creating what analysts describe as a narrow opportunity for Europe to expand its strategic role, according to a new commentary published by Carnegie Europe.

The paper, “Russia’s Imperial Retreat Is Europe’s Strategic Opportunity”, argues that as the Kremlin diverts resources to sustain its military campaign, its ability to act as a security guarantor abroad is weakening, leaving behind a geopolitical vacuum stretching from the South Caucasus to the Middle East and Africa.

“To sustain a war of total attrition in Ukraine, the Kremlin has effectively pawned its overseas empire,” the authors write, describing the trend as a broader “Great Liquidation” overseen by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

However, they caution that Russia’s retreat does not automatically translate into a Western resurgence. Instead, it risks creating instability unless Europe moves quickly to consolidate influence.

“For European policymakers, it could represent a finite strategic window,” the paper says, namely an opportunity to integrate neighbouring regions into “a durable European security and energy architecture before the vacuum is claimed by chaos or China’s middle corridor ambitions”. 

Eroding credibility as a security partner

The report highlights what it describes as Moscow’s declining reliability as an ally, pointing to its limited response when Iran sought support.

Despite a strategic partnership agreement signed in 2025, Russia “has not offered the kind of decisive backing one would expect from a credible security guarantor,” the authors say, noting that the Kremlin “neither activated its S-400 missile systems stationed in Syria nor appeared to act in line with the spirit of the mutual assistance clauses.”

Such behaviour reflects a broader shift, they argue, as Russia increasingly prioritises its war effort over external commitments.

“Russia’s contraction is most visible where its traditional role as a security guarantor has turned into that of a security predator,” the paper states.

Shift in the South Caucasus

One of the clearest examples is unfolding in the South Caucasus, particularly in Armenia.

After years of heavy dependence on Russian arms, Yerevan has rapidly diversified its partnerships following Moscow’s failure to deliver weapons during the 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh crisis.

The report notes that Armenia’s reliance on Russian military supplies has dropped dramatically — from 96% to below 10% by early 2026 — with countries including France and India stepping in.

“The myth of Russian reliability has been replaced by the reality of Western-led connectivity,” the authors write.

A key development is a new transport corridor through southern Armenia, described as “no longer merely a local road” but “a Western-guaranteed artery linking the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean.”

The paper argues that the European Union should build on such projects by investing in regional infrastructure, including “fibre-optics, automated customs terminals, and 5G corridors,” to ensure connectivity aligns with European standards rather than Chinese ones.

Declining influence in the Balkans

Russia’s influence is also waning in the Western Balkans, particularly in the energy sector.

According to the report, expanded sanctions against Russian firms have forced a “historic divestment” of energy assets across Europe, weakening one of Moscow’s main tools of influence.

However, the authors warn that the EU risks losing ground if it fails to offer credible integration prospects.

“If Brussels continues to offer a vague, decades-long membership timeline, accession fatigue will set in,” the paper says, adding that Russia could be replaced not by Europe but by “non-aligned transactional powers.”

To counter this, the report calls for faster integration of Balkan countries into the EU’s energy market, arguing that deeper economic ties could make “a return to Russia economically and politically impossible.”

Setbacks in the Middle East and Africa

Further south, Russia’s position has been undermined by setbacks in Syria and beyond.

The fall of President Bashar al-Assad’s government in late 2025 marked a major strategic loss after years of military investment.

“Russia no longer dictates Syrian policy—it pays rent for its survival,” the authors write, describing a shift from dominance to dependency.

This has had knock-on effects in Africa, where Russia’s security model — based on deploying mercenary forces in exchange for access to natural resources — is coming under strain.

The report notes that Russian operations in countries such as Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso relied heavily on Syrian bases for logistics. With those routes disrupted, Moscow’s ability to sustain its presence is weakening.

By restricting Russian troop movements and reasserting control over key infrastructure, the new Syrian authorities are “liquidating the very outposts that once anchored Moscow’s Mediterranean presence,” the paper says.

Implications for Europe

The report argues that these shifts present both risks and opportunities for Europe. On one hand, reduced Russian influence could improve European security. On the other, a power vacuum could invite instability or increased Chinese involvement.

To capitalise on the moment, the authors call for a more coordinated European strategy, including the creation of “a unified maritime deterrent” and stronger integration of energy networks across neighbouring regions.

They also highlight the importance of large-scale infrastructure initiatives, urging the EU to prioritise economic corridors linking Europe with the Middle East and Asia.

Despite Russia’s current setbacks, the authors stress that its retreat is unlikely to be permanent. “The Great Liquidation of the Russian empire is not a permanent state of affairs, but a finite geopolitical intermission,” the report warns.

If Europe fails to act decisively, it could face a renewed Russian presence in the future — potentially “leaner, more volatile, and more reliant on asymmetric disruption.”

Ultimately, the paper frames the moment as a test of the EU’s ability to evolve beyond its traditional role.

“The success of the post-Russian order… depends on whether Brussels can move from being a regulatory power to a strategic actor,” it concludes.

As the geopolitical landscape shifts, the authors argue, the outcome will depend largely on how quickly Europe responds. “The map is being redrawn by the Kremlin’s retreat,” they write, warning that whether it reflects “European values and connectivity or defaults to transactional chaos depends entirely on the speed with which Brussels moves to claim the terrain.”