More than four and a half years after the Russian-Ukrainian war began in February 2022, the question is no longer limited to the fate of Ukrainian territory. The war has become a test of the future of European security, Russia’s ability to continue under sanctions pressure, Europe’s capacity to defend itself, and the limits of the US role on a continent whose crises increasingly overlap with those in the Middle East and with strategic competition with China.
In September 2026, a comprehensive settlement does not appear to be close. The issues blocking such a settlement go beyond a ceasefire to include the status of disputed territories, security guarantees for Ukraine, the future of sanctions, and the shape of relations between Russia and the West. Therefore, even if the fighting stops, the political, military, and economic confrontation could continue for years.
The Battlefield
Ukraine is fighting the war on its own territory in defense of its sovereignty, while Russia views the outcome as a factor that will determine its strategic position in Europe. At the same time, European countries view the use of force to change borders as a threat that extends beyond Ukraine to the security of the entire continent.
For this reason, European support for Kyiv has expanded alongside increased defense spending and the development of military industries. In September 2026, the NATO Secretary General stated that allies had allocated around $10 billion during the previous year for mechanisms to purchase US-made equipment and deliver it to Ukraine, including the “Prioritized Requirements List for Ukraine” mechanism. This figure represents funding allocated for support and does not mean that all the equipment has already been delivered.
The war has highlighted the need of European militaries for air defense systems, ammunition, drones, and electronic warfare capabilities, alongside conventional military platforms. NATO is likely to remain the foundation of collective European defense, while European countries seek to assume a greater share of its responsibilities and strengthen their capacity to produce the weapons and equipment they require.
Sanctions Pressure
Western sanctions are aimed at reducing Russia’s ability to finance the war and obtain the technology and components required for its military industries. In July 2026, the European Union adopted its twenty-first sanctions package, covering measures related to energy, financial services, trade, and entities and individuals linked to Russia’s war effort.
However, the impact of sanctions cannot be measured simply by the number of sanctions packages. It also depends on oil prices, the volume of Russian exports, transportation costs, and Moscow’s ability to find alternative buyers and financial channels. As a result, disruptions in global energy supplies may provide Russia with higher revenues even as its exports face tighter restrictions. This is a potential relationship that varies according to prices, volumes, and the enforcement of sanctions; therefore, it would be inaccurate to assume that every increase in oil prices automatically translates into a net gain for Moscow.
The Middle East Effect
The war in Ukraine interacts with Middle Eastern crises through two main channels: energy and weapons. Disruptions to oil and gas supplies or to shipping through major maritime routes can push global prices higher, affecting the economies of importing countries and the revenues of exporting states. At the same time, simultaneous demand for air-defense systems and ammunition in more than one region puts pressure on stockpiles, production capacities, and decisions concerning the allocation of resources.
The political linkage is also visible at the United Nations Security Council. On September 17, 2026, Russia and China vetoed a draft resolution extending the mandate of the UN mechanism for monitoring sanctions on Iran. Precision is important here: the vote concerned the mandate of the monitoring mechanism, not a decision to abolish the sanctions themselves. It reflects growing differences among major powers over international issues, although each issue has its own distinct legal and political dynamics.
The Energy Map
The war has significantly transformed Europe’s relationship with Russian energy. According to the European Commission, the share of Russian gas in the European Union’s total gas imports fell from 45% in 2021 to 12% in 2025. In January 2026, the European Union adopted rules for the gradual phase-out of Russian gas imports, with transitional arrangements for existing contracts.
However, diversifying energy sources does not eliminate Europe’s exposure to global market volatility. LNG and oil prices are affected by international competition for supplies and the security of shipping routes, particularly when crises escalate in the Middle East. European energy policy has therefore become simultaneously linked to security of supply, industrial costs, investment in renewable energy, and electricity interconnection.
International Maneuvering
Trade and energy relations with China provide Russia with an important economic outlet. However, it would be an overstatement to assume that the two countries have identical positions on every issue. China is balancing its partnership with Moscow against its extensive commercial interests with Europe and the United States, while also monitoring the impact of the war on Washington’s military and political priorities.
The positions of other countries, including India, also demonstrate the difficulty of turning Western sanctions into a comprehensive global isolation of Russia. Many countries seek to protect their interests in energy, food, and trade while avoiding full alignment with either side. This does not make them a unified bloc; rather, it highlights the diversity of interests among countries commonly referred to as the “Global South.”
Confrontation Risks
The potential cost of a direct war between Russia and NATO remains enormous, creating a strong incentive for both sides to control escalation. However, the danger is not limited to a deliberate decision to launch a large-scale war. It could also emerge from a border incident, a major cyberattack, or a miscalculation followed by a response and counter-response.
Europe is therefore moving toward strengthening deterrence, protecting critical infrastructure, and increasing the readiness of its forces. At the same time, incident management and communication channels will remain crucial in preventing indirect confrontation from developing into open conflict.
Implications for Egypt
The first impact is the import bill: fluctuations in energy and grain prices affect import costs, inflation, and budgetary pressures. This requires monitoring markets and securing diversified sources of supply rather than basing projections on assumptions of stable prices.
The second is trade and the Suez Canal: the war in Ukraine affects global trade, while shipping companies’ decisions regarding transit through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal are directly linked to maritime security in the region. In September 2026, the Suez Canal Authority pointed to signs of improvement in container shipping activity, including an increase in the net tonnage of container vessels transiting the canal during January–August compared with the same period in 2025. However, the continuation of this recovery remains linked to the stability of maritime routes.
The third is energy opportunities and partnership with Europe: the European Union’s search for more diversified energy sources creates opportunities for Egypt in electricity interconnection, renewable energy, and grid development. In June 2026, the European Commission announced cooperation with Egypt on a €690 million investment in the clean-energy network. However, converting these opportunities into sustainable economic returns depends on project implementation, grid capacity, and cost competitiveness.
Politically, the crisis requires Egypt to maintain its ability to work with different partners, including Russia, the European Union, and the United States, in accordance with its interests in food security, energy, investment, and regional stability. The value of this ability increases as the gap between the major powers widens.
Possible Scenarios
Three possible paths can be considered for the next phase:
First: Continued war of attrition: military operations, external support, and sanctions continue without a rapid resolution.
Second: A ceasefire without a comprehensive settlement: the level of fighting declines, but disputes over territory, security guarantees, and sanctions remain capable of reigniting the crisis.
Third: Expansion of indirect confrontation: cyber, military, and economic tensions between Russia and European countries increase, while both sides continue to avoid direct war.
It is not possible at this stage to determine which scenario will prevail. This will depend on developments on the battlefield, the continuation of support for Ukraine, Russia’s ability to sustain the war, and political decisions in Moscow, Kyiv, and Western capitals.
Overall, the Ukraine war has become a turning point in the structure of European security, the relationship between energy and international politics, and the distribution of defense responsibilities between Europe and the United States. However, the war alone does not prove that a new international order has already been established. The contours of the next phase are still being shaped under the pressure of the war and simultaneous global crises.
Military operations may end before the causes of Russian-European tensions disappear. Therefore, the most important question is not simply when the war will end, but how security arrangements can be built to prevent its recurrence, and how countries such as Egypt will manage its consequences for energy, food, maritime navigation, and international relations.
