Western leaders spent the first two weeks of the Russia-Ukraine crisis threatening Moscow with sanctions and promising Kyiv aid.

Financial sanctions were imposed on Russian companies, banks, and individuals.

But Russia, which has dealt with different rounds of international sanctions since its military operations in Georgia and eastern Ukraine in 2008 and 2014, has become somewhat sanction-proof. It has developed methods to avoid the effects of such measures, such as cutting it off from the SWIFT financial system.

The ball was therefore in the Western camp’s court countries to show that strong statements about the unity of the West and its determination to punish Russia will turn into actions. But results were disappointing. The West’s unity showed some cracks only three weeks into the war. There is already disquiet and tension in many European capitals, led by Germany and France, over American policies that Paris and Berlin fear could plunge Europe into a long multilateral war with catastrophic security and economic repercussions.

The disquiet began when the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the US is in “very active discussions with our European partners” about banning the import of Russian oil and gas. Shortly after, oil prices surged to a 14-year high, while Benchmark gas prices for Europe rose 79 per cent to €345 a megawatt-hour. Meanwhile, UK gas prices hit a fresh record of 800p per therm at one point in early trading on Monday. They had started the working week at around 460p per therm.

The US imports more than 500,000 barrels of Russian crude per day. That accounts for only about 8 per cent of its overall oil imports, while the European Union imports about a quarter of its oil needs, and about half of its gas needs from Russia. Germany, Europe’s largest economy, which is dependent on Russia for imports of more than 55 per cent of its gas, 50 per cent of its coal, and 35 per cent of its oil, rejected the proposed embargo on Russian oil imports, preferring “sustainable” pressure on Moscow that would not impose too heavy a burden on Germans.

“All our steps are designed to hit Russia hard, and be sustainable over the long term,” German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said in a statement on Monday. “At the moment, Europe’s supply of energy for heat generation, mobility, power supply, and industry cannot be secured in any other way. It is therefore of essential importance for the provision of public services and the daily lives of our citizens.The German government has been working hard for months with its partners within the EU and beyond to develop alternatives to Russian energy. However, this cannot be done overnight,” Scholz said. “That is why it is a conscious decision on our part to continue the activities of commercial enterprises in the area of energy supply with Russia.”

France and the Netherlands agreed with the German position and, although British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that a ban on energy imports from Russia is “on the table”, he too stated at a joint press conference with Canadian PM Justin Trudeau and Dutch Premier Mark Rutte, that breaking dependency on Russian oil and gas will need time and co-operation, arguing that Europe can’t simply shut down the use of oil and gas overnight.

“There are different dependencies in different countries, and we have to be mindful of that. You can’t simply close down the use of oil and gas overnight, even from Russia,” Johnson said. He conceded that “we can go fast in the UK…but what we need to do is make sure we are all moving in the same direction.”

For his part Rutte acknowledged that dependence on Russian energy supplies “was still there” in many parts of Europe, and he called for any imposed to be done “diligently”, arguing that it would have to be a “step-by-step” process. “The painful reality is we are still very dependent on Russian oil and gas,” he said, adding that there would be “enormous ramifications” if EU countries applied an immediate ban.

But differences between Western countries are not limited to the severity and nature of sanctions against Russia. There are disputes about arming Ukraine with combat aircraft from neighbouring countries such as Poland and Hungary. America supports this and is holding talks with Poland to discuss possibilities for the Polish government to give Ukraine MiG-29 combat planes. In return, the US would replace them by sending F-16 jets to Warsaw.

The Ukrainian government is demanding that the West provide it with Russian-made fighter jets because that is the type of aircraft that the Ukrainian army is familiar with. But in addition to the logistical difficulties of transporting aircraft from one country to another, there are fears that the move will lead to an expansion of the war in Europe after Moscow warned that it would consider any country actively participating in the conflict a declaration of war.

A European diplomat told Al-Ahram Weekly that France and Germany have doubts about the American idea because it would mean dragging other European countries into a possible confrontation with Russia. “For Berlin and Paris, there must be a balance between pressure on Russia and diplomacy. This balance has not yet been achieved in the eyes of some. We are walking with open eyes towards a long war in Europe, which will affect European security for years to come and that will put a nail in the coffin of European strategic independence from America. Hence the efforts of France and Germany to leave the door ajar for the Russian president to return from his military escalation to the negotiating table.”

But even Washington’s most trusted ally in Europe, the UK has not given resounding support to the idea.

The UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said on Tuesday that he would support Poland, a fellow NATO member, to supply MiG-29 jets to Ukraine “if they chose to do so”. Wallace told SkyNews that “Poland will understand that the choices it makes will not only directly help Ukraine, which is a good thing, but also may bring them into the direct line of fire from countries such as Russia or Belarus… They will have to calibrate that. That’s a really big responsibility on the shoulders of the president of Poland and, indeed, its defence minister.”

Initial talks about the idea were faced with dismissal from the Polish president and his defence minister, and there is little evidence that they will change their stand. Polish President Andrzej Duda said his country would not send any planes to Ukraine because it might be seen as interfering in the war. Moreover, the proposal is struggling to gain traction in the Biden administration, and the US is reviewing whether the plan is feasible, according to three US officials who talked to NBC.

“It’s a lot easier to give hand-held weapons than it is to transfer a plane,” a source familiar with the discussions said. The US does not have a surplus of F-16s, officials have also added. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki referred to the “layers of different, difficult logistical challenges” surrounding the proposal. “This is Poland’s sovereign decision to make,” Psaki told reporters. Psaki added that sending F-16s to Poland and replacing them in the US would carry its own challenges. “Procuring new planes and transferring serious weapon systems often take years to do from the United States,” she said.

The third issue that has set off intra-Western quarrels is related to the reception of about two million Ukrainian refugees who fled Ukraine since the outbreak of the war. France’s Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin, has accused the British government of showing a “lack of humanity” when it comes to helping the Ukrainian refugees who are now waiting in Calais for permission to join their families in the UK. In a letter to the UK home secretary, Priti Patel, Darmanin called on the British government to set up a proper consular service in Calais, adding that its response so far was “completely unsuitable”.

So far, the UK has resisted demands to loosen visa restrictions for Ukrainians fleeing the war. While Poland has taken in more than a million Ukrainian refugees, Britain has only taken in about 300.

The British government said it will only take in refugees who have relatives in the UK, a position that exposes it to European criticism. Prime Minister Boris Johnson rejected calls for Britain to ease visa requirements for Ukrainian refugees, saying the UK would not “abandon controls altogether” on those wanting to come to the country, adding it was “sensible to have some basic ability to check who is coming in and who isn’t”.

This stance was criticised by opposition parties in Britain, who said it recalled a Brexit rally talk. From a European perspective, Britain cannot use its border policies and the fact that it is not in the Schengen zone to avoid fulfilling its humanitarian obligations on an equal footing with poorer countries such as Poland, Romania, and the Baltic states. Now the war is still in its first three weeks, and it is expected to last for months if not years, due to the Ukrainian resistance and the slowdown of Russian military advances, but already the cracks in Western unity are significant and some fear they will only grow deeper.

*A version of this article appears in print in the 10 March, 2022 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly.