Overall European view is crucial. It is clearly positive that EUROPE's readers have had the opportunity to acquaint themselves - through the most direct route (the Ukrainian ambassador to Brussels - see EUROPE 11057) - with Ukraine's position in the current circumstances: what Ukraine expects from the EU and how it judges Russia's attitude. Europe needs to take this into account - but at the same time, Brussels cannot forget its own positions resulting from the meeting of its foreign affairs ministers that took place in Athens on 4-5 April (see EUROPE 11055 and the following pages for yesterday's meeting in Luxembourg).
It is completely normal that Mr Yelisieiev expressed his defiance and deep concern about Moscow's attitude. It's also completely normal that the EU's vision has a more general nature. The EU foreign affairs ministers' assessments and approaches can be summarised thus: - to reduce tension with Russia, so as to create a climate enabling applicable and consensual political solutions to the issues that remain open, and; - to maintain the possibility of further sanctions, if they seem appropriate. Nor should the areas be forgotten in which the EU and Russia, as well as the US, are also engaged - especially the war in Syria, the discussions with Iran and the gradual end to commitments in Afghanistan.
It is true that the attitudes of European countries to Moscow are not always fully in line - uncertainties and reservations continue on one aspect or another. Yet the approach can be summed up in one phrase: to replace the confrontation with Russia with collaboration. This was not the uniform position of the EU at the beginning. The opportunity to calm the differences with Moscow was not recognised by everyone, and the US sometimes seemed to forget its cooperation with Russia in a fair number of areas. A few days ago, Washington announced the application of the new phase of the START Treaty on progressive and reciprocal nuclear disarmament.
Possible outlook for compromise and reasons. Let's come back to bilateral EU-Russia cooperation. Moscow's decision to insert Crimea into Russian national territory is not formally recognised, but this is considered as in the bag - on condition that it does not spread to other places. The issue of Ukraine is more complex. The energy aspect is a puzzle in itself. To summarise, the gas that feeds Ukraine comes from Russia; the Russian authorities say that they have subsidised Kiev by $35-40 billion; the Russian authorities want payment for this and are threatening to block flows of gas; the EU is proposing to supply Ukraine with gas or oil instead of receiving it from Ukraine - which is not possible for long (there are 18 European countries that use the gas…). Germany receives Russian gas and oil by another route - but its industry has other reasons for cooperating with Russia because, for its huge industries, the Russian market cannot certainly not be ignored. The head of Siemens, Joe Kaeser, has even met Vladimir Putin personally in Moscow. The interest of their talks was reciprocal as the short-term disruption must not harm long-term projects. And another big German industry has noted that trade with Russia guarantees 350,000 jobs in Germany.
This is not demagoguery because the EU is responsible for its expenditure to its citizens, who finance this expenditure. The EU has formally approved its aid to Ukraine - $1 billion is to come on top of the $610 million that has already been earmarked. A similar decision is expected from the IMF (macro-financial assistance), which is reviewing the conditions that Ukraine will have to accept. On Moscow's side, the situation is different - Russian billionaires who have obtained residency in London are very active in several areas (including football). Let's hope that they have not been forgotten in Moscow and that they pay their taxes.
And the Americans? The issues mentioned above are essentially European. The Americans are playing a crucial role but Europe must play its own role taking account of its reality. The idea that it can replace Russian oil and gas with American shale gas is, for the moment, a pipedream because it will take years before supply can begin - a supply that could never be developed on a large scale. If Europe has to diversify its energy sources, it could rather look to the Sahara and solar energy (despite a few recent problematic points). The EU and the US will continue to cooperate closely in several areas, but not on energy. The conclusion to all this is that, for its cooperation with Russia, Europe must largely manage on its own, taking account of its needs and interests.
(FR)