For years all observers of EU-Russia relations got used to waiting with angst the next EU-Russia summit (which happens twice a year under each presidency). All recent EU-Russia summits had some spice to them. In May 2007, under the German presidency, Angela Merkel took a principled stance on democracy and played tough with Putin. A few days after that summit, Jose Socrates, the Portuguese PM (and the next EU presidency) was offered the best diplomatic treatment in Moscow – the Kremlin was closed to visitors so that Jose Socrates could jog in the inner sanctum of the Russian state. After that, many expected the EU-Russia summit under the Portuguese presidency to step back from Merkel’s principled stance on Russia. Then there was the first EU-Russia summit with president Medvedev in June 2008 when many hoped it would be the beginning of a post-Putin era; and then the first summit after the Georgia war under the French presidency in November 2008.
But there is little spice in the EU-Russia summit taking place in Khabarovsk on 21/22 May. It seems like a very quiet event. There is not angst, no media hype, no nerves and little hope around it. Why?
First, the EU accepts Russia as it is. The political regime in Russia is consolidated. There is little hope of changing it in the foreseeable future. There is little desire or hope to try and transform Russia. The EU accepts that Russia’s transformation is Russia’s business, and has little appetite to voice concerns related to Russian domestic developments (which have gone quieter since Chechnya is kind of stabilized and “the Other Russia” does not protest anymore). Germans hope to transform Russia through “interlocking” and modernization, not through diplomacy, while most others want to do business or are demotivated.
Two, the energy tensions have been effectively taken off the EU-Russia agenda. Russia sought to bilateralize its dealings on Nord and South Stream with Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Austria, Hungary etc. And wants to see no EU fiddling around these cosy deals. The only Russian energy interest in the EU as an institution is defensive – make sure the EU does not push for its measures to liberalize the energy markets. Berlusconi and Parvanov are nicer energy interlocutors than Barroso and Solana. The EU has also taken the thrust of energy talks from the EU-Russia agenda. Some states have bilateral dealings with Russia, some others push for Nabucco. The European Commission and some EU member states also push for the liberalization of the energy markets. When everyone is trying to achieve their energy objectives through other channels and means, the EU-Russia summits become places to exchange opinions, rather than do “real business” on energy. But the Swedish government should issue a verdict on Nord Stream soon, most probably under the Swedish EU presidency. Expect the next EU-Russia summit in Sweden to be very spicy, if the Swedish answer is “nej”.
Third, the news coming from Russia and EU member states is quieter. Partly it is Medvedev’s style (who doesn’t plan so far to “hang by the balls“ post-Soviet presidents, or offer circumcision to EU journalists as Putin did at the EU-Russia summit under the Danish presidency in 2002); partly it is related to changes in approaches to Russia in Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and the like; partly, it is the economic crisis that made Russia a little bit less abrasive in public (though the essence of its foreign policy has not changed). In any case there are fewer public disputes between EU member states and Russia.
The relative calm of the EU-Russia relationship today is no indicator of a structurally better partnership. The list of disagreements is long. But some of them are technical, while others are unbridgeable (like Georgia’s conflicts). The hope is to leave some of these issues for the negotiations on the new EU-Russia agreement, and the others for the talks on a new European security architecture. No one will put them at the centre of the current summit. The quiet summit is perhaps an indicator of mutual disappointment. But also of the fact that the new era of EU-Russia tensions will be increasingly marked not by what Russia is, but by developments in the neighbourhood.
The recent hidden or open tensions in EU-Russia relations had their roots in crises in the neighbourhood: the August 2008 war in Georgia, the January 2009 Ukraine-Russia gas dispute, EU pressure on Belarus not to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and the Moldovan post-election crisis in April 2009. But then again, there is little to discuss, as both Russia and the EU are pursuing their objectives in the neighbourhood without talking to each other too much about them.
Either way, problems in the neighbourhood will not go away. But what we might witness is a situation where the EU and Russia are reasonably good partners on global issues such as Iran, the Middle East, Afghanistan, disarmament, and energy; but increasingly tough competitors in the neighbourhood. Such competition could be managed better, but it is difficult to marry EU’s vision of a neighbourhood that becomes increasingly like the EU with Russia’s vision of the neighbourhood as a sphere of its influence.
#1 by Bart on May 21, 2009 - 5:13 pm
great analysis.
#2 by Lisa on May 21, 2009 - 5:27 pm
QUOTE: “First, the EU accepts Russia as it is. The political regime in Russia is consolidated. There is little hope of changing it in the foreseeable future. There is little desire or hope to try and transform Russia. The EU accepts that Russia’s transformation is Russia’s busines” UNQUOTE
———————-
This seems to be exactly the treatment that China seems to be asking the EU for in today’s ‘euobserver’ headline story:
‘China warns EU not to meddle in internal affairs’
http://euobserver.com/9/28167
#3 by Kazimierz on May 21, 2009 - 5:59 pm
Maybe the meeting is in Khabarovsk in Far East Russia in order to avoid western journalists?
Here are my ideas for EU-Russia relations (that I’ve never seen in western \free media\).
Foreign policy of EU should be, ideally, both moral and consistent with EU interests.
What EU eastern policy would satisfy these two principles? To answer this question we should start by recalling some basic facts.
First, population of Eurasia is concentrated in three clusters: east China and neighborhood, Indian subcontinent, and Europe. Overwhelming majority of Russians live in Europe, most of them within several hundred kilometers from western border of Russia.
Second, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia are three eastern Slavic nations with very similar languages, with shared religion and culture for last thousand years, and with shared statehood for last 200 years. EU policy makers should keep these facts in mind while devising eastern policies.
Third, Russia is a \mineral power\, rich in all kinds of minerals, not only in oil and gas. Russia is also a leading technological power in selected areas like space exploration. Consequently, Russian economy seems to be very complementary to EU’s industrial and technological power. Hence, close economic cooperation with Russia is clearly in EU interests.
In view of those facts, what kind of EU eastern policy would be both moral and consistent with EU interests?
First, we need to see that attempts to isolate Russia from EU are both immoral and inconsistent with EU interests. Where does 100+ million Russians are supposed to go and join? Far away China or India? Such policy of separation would go also against historical tradition of Europe.
Second, EU should abandon attempts to tear apart Ukraine and Belarus from Russia. Such policy of tearing apart, or divide and rule, lowers moral stature of EU, stature that is very valuable in 21 century. Such policies are also not likely to be successful due to close affinity of those three nations. Actually, such policy may create problems in Ukraine – it already does – and thus negatively influence EU interests. It is much better to approach these three countries as one bloc.
Third, due to complementarity of EU’s and Russia’s economies, it is in EU interest to develop close economic cooperation with Russia and, by extension, with Ukraine and Belarus. Economic cooperation usually leads to cooperation in other areas.
In summary, moral and self-interested EU eastern policy should lead EU to deepening of relations with all: Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Such a policy can be named EU+3.
Kazimierz Wiesak
#4 by al on May 22, 2009 - 12:01 am
This is no surprise to me. The EU is merely following Germany’s lead, as usual (and as Maggie Thatcher pointed out in 1995). Is everyone at least aware of the new Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?
#5 by Nick on May 22, 2009 - 2:03 pm
How long can Russia hold itself together though?
The economy is dominated by oil and gas, the population is aging and shrinking rapidly and much of the land is undercultivated. There’s also the serious issue of governance and corruption that needs tackling ASAP.
At some point in the future I can see Russian lands effectively breaking off into muslim republics and regions under Chinese influence; unless some sort of radical action is taken.
#6 by Paul on May 22, 2009 - 8:44 pm
Kazimierz,
I’d like to see Russia in the EU where surely she belongs, but I fear it might only happen following some sort of major catastrophe. Despite Silvio Berlusconi’s enthusiasm I suspect it is decades away and it would be a long, slow and painful process to integrate!
#7 by Kazimierz on May 23, 2009 - 5:11 pm
Paul,
I agree.
That is why I suggested idea of EU+3.
Russia is geographically, historically and culturally part of Europe although a somewhat separate part. (still she is closer than Turkey).
The problem is world politics. Cohesive EU cooperating closely with Russia is a threat to American dominance of the world. Hence, all those who want to preserve the U.S. dominance want to (a) lower cohesion of EU, (b) separate Russia from EU.
On top of that, owners of the mainstream media – for their own political gain – are waging information war against Russia. Those forces together keep Europe subdued.
But let’s be optimistic.
#8 by quinus on May 25, 2009 - 2:14 pm
Kazimierz,
i suppose you are polish…or if not anyway from the est of europe…so you should stop being naive…i think the last 50 were enough to get used with the russian habits…
i prefer american dominance to russian tanks…in europe wherever russians stepped they left thumbs and blood…that’s way i don’t think you can name one country under their dominance feeling sorry to kick them out.
#9 by Kazimierz on May 25, 2009 - 3:54 pm
quinus,
Well, old fears and phobias die hard. Especially irrational fears. But for comparison purposes: Soviet Union intervined militarily in 4 countries since WWII, the United States in 17 countries.
But I don’t talk about military issues. Economically, EU and Russia are complementary. And this should be the basis for cooperation. Also, politically and culturally there is a lot to gain for both sides.
Btw, Russian economy is the size of Franch economy so any fears of Russian domination are grossly exagerated.
EU+3
#10 by quinus on May 26, 2009 - 12:54 pm
really…
‘old fears phobias’….let me give you a ‘new’ one…is called osetia and abhazia…
‘intervined militarily in 4 countries since WWII’…russia occupied military all eastern europe…i don’t think anyone invited them to station their tanks there…
cooperation between russia an europe at this moment means gas supplies blackmailing…
‘EU and Russia are complementary’….let’s take it like a joke…EU cannot be complementary with a country where the opposition journalists are shot and deflected spies are poisoned…
#11 by Kazimierz on May 26, 2009 - 2:58 pm
quinus,
you are right… be happy… don’t forget to take daily dose of “free media”… it will help you keep your state of mind… and disjoinment from reality…
#12 by quinus on May 26, 2009 - 3:11 pm
as you say…but better happy than naive…
and sorry…media in my country is free…and i prefers it this way…it prevents you from arguments like we occupied 4 countries only so we are better than you who occupied 15….because that ‘free media’ first will start asking itself how moral is to occupy even one…
#13 by Res Publica on May 27, 2009 - 6:39 am
The idea that Russia isn’t European is mad! plain and simple.
Whether the EU can appear enticing to Russia is another matter. Looking at the average population in the EU today, perhaps in the west we appear to Russians as not sufficiently European compared to them?
But then there is another dimension here that we seem to ignore.
What about EU joining Russia? at least in some areas of common interest. How about improving the energy market? Are we not already sharing in other areas? such as space exploration?
As for Ukraine, a more flexible approach is required in view of Russian concerns. To be fair about this we have to admit that Crimea is a big issue, and that talk of any barrier/border control in/out of Russia is on humanitarian grounds not going to happen. That sort of rule would be like putting border controls among the British Nations!
A solution might be found in the +3 formula with all of the nations in that group receiving the same status.
Final dimension is that the Russian people are as exicited about a European future as EU citizens are and it is that enthusiasm that should be a beacon of hope to all even if not in some kind of EU-RF joint venture.
#14 by Kazimierz on May 27, 2009 - 5:24 pm
Res Publica writes
“What about EU joining Russia?”
——
An interesting approach!
I was thinking in term of economy. The total economy of the 3 (Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus) is about 15 percent of the EU economy. But the population of the 3 is 200 million while population of EU is 500 million. More equal in terms of population. And the land area of EU is like 15 percent of the Russian land area.
Even within the economy, as Res Publica notices, in some subareas, Russia is equal, or larger, than EU.
Common European future is an idea whose time has come.
#15 by Lawrence on May 29, 2009 - 5:55 am
The only common european future is for the EUseless petty dictators and Brusselscrats to hand back their usurped power to the different nation states and scrap the EU to the dustbin of history.
#16 by roma on June 5, 2009 - 8:25 pm
Russia hase about 20% of EU economy by it self. Because only GErmany in ahead of Russia but Russia will overtake Gerany in few years like it did to all other major EU countrys like UK, France, and Italy, and will become the leading Economy in EUROPE. also Russia dose not want to join EU because than it will luse its power. bBecause other countrys in EU will have to accept russia to fight and it will not be able if they will not accept. But like now Russia hase the power ukes and CSTO union and can destroy every country in the world but if it joins UE it will be weaker.
#17 by JJ on November 14, 2009 - 5:16 pm
Maybe we should just cut it short and UK leave EU sooner rather than later. Then Russia can join and EU is, ehm, more “complete”…
#18 by petros on November 28, 2009 - 3:33 pm
JJ, what the UK has to do with the subject?
I’m starting to believe that the UK eu-haters have come up with an ingenious master plan.
Since they cannot convince their fellow citizens to leave EU (by voiting UKIP for example) they will force the other countries to kick the UK out by constantly bitching and grouching about the EU, on every blog, relevant or irrelevant.
I’m kidding, even If I don’t agree 90% of the time, I always read carefully the eurosceptics and even the eurohaters views.
I don’t think there is any point talking about Russia joining the EU. If this ever occurs, Russia will have to transform so much that it will take decades to happen. And after 3 or 4 decades nobody knows how the world will be…
#19 by Duncan on November 29, 2009 - 4:18 pm
Petros, you’re a better man than me if you can actually read all of those posts. Unfortunately the louder, illogical, extreme UKIP breed of eurosceptic tends to predominate online (with a light sprinkling of conspiracy theorists who think that the EU is some kind of grand plot for domination over Europe by the USA) rather than intelligent, quieter people who genuinely have concerns over the democracy within the EU itself and have constructive criticism about the system at hand. Bit of a shame really.
As far as Russia goes – I honestly can’t see EU membership being a positive thing for Russia or the EU at the moment. Russia is too big, too undemocratic and moreover its government looks as though wants Russia to be a superpower in its own right again. Obviously in terms of being European Russia is entitled to join if it wants to but it really, really doesn’t at the moment. Probably the least likely country in Europe to ever be in it. Except Kazakhstan.
One thing which I do find a bit concerning is way that Russians posting here seem to be seeing Ukraine and Belarus as integral parts of Russia (maybe I’m just reading the wrong things between the lines) when Ukrainians most definitely consider themselves a separate nation (judging by the view of the ones I’ve met in any event) – presumably Belarussians do too if they went to such efforts to drop the whole “White Russia” or “Byellorussia” tag. Ultimately it’s their right to have a choice what path they take, regardless of what Russia thinks. If they join the EU, it’s their right to. If they join NATO, it’s their right to. Conversely if the wind changes and they want to deepen involvement in the CIS or attempt a political unification with Russia then it is also their right to do that. It looks entirely possible that that may happen in Ukraine after the next elections and if they want to do that then good on them.
Also, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to blame the EU for “interfering” with them. They are no more interfering with Belarus and Ukraine than they are with, say, Azerbaijan – the difference in the level of engagement with the EU is due to the individual countries’ governments’ attitudes rather than anything from Brussels. Ukraine’s government wants a deeper engagement with definite membership prospects at the moment and if that occurs it will be Kiev, not Brussels, who has been pushing harder for it. With Belarus I have always got the impression that Lukashenko is very much ideologically aligned with Russia but simply isn’t getting what he wants to get out of the relationship with Russia at the moment and would probably cease having much to do with the EU if he got what he wanted from Russia. The EU’s involvement with Belarus seems to be mostly in the hope of making the country more democratic rather than for any realistic membership prospect in the forseeable future in any event.