Excessive dramatising? The readiness with which the failure of the Geneva Agreement on developments in Ukraine was announced last week, was to my mind rather exaggerated. The taste for the sensational has its reasons, but a little more caution and a little less momentum on the war-path might be fitting.
It is understandable that the Ukrainian authorities are trying to highlight their concerns and fears. The prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenuk, asserted in Rome this weekend that Russia is in the midst of preparing the third world war. In Brussels, Ukraine's minister for education, Serhiy Kvit, asserted during a conference (see EUROPE 11066) that dialogue with Russia is impossible - it's not possible to hold a dialogue with the devil. At the same time, the US has called for additional sanctions against Russia (the countries of the EU being more reluctant) and most media have already decreed the death of the Geneva Statement.
To my mind, the situation is less dramatic. What is currently happening represents the efforts of each of the parties to make its interests known as much as possible - to the point where compromises become inevitable and where each must accept concessions. The inflexibility of the bodies that have specific tasks, like NATO for the military aspect, is understandable. However, the overall decisions are taken definitively at the higher level. What is more, we know that a change will take place at the head of NATO on 1 October, and it could contribute to better reciprocal understanding.
A few differences between the EU and US. On a general level, relations with Russia sometimes have a different significance for Europe from that which they have for the US - both for geographical and economic reasons. We need to be realistic - on an official visit to Asia, Barack Obama has stated that, for his country, the Pacific is much more important than the Atlantic. Furthermore, everyone knows that the US is trying to reduce its direct presence in the areas of the world where it has been very active - it continues to accelerate its departure from Afghanistan, for example. It should not be forgotten, however, that in certain fields the US and Russia cooperate very closely - like for everything that concerns space.
At the same time, on the European side, the current complications have the merit of relaunching old projects that have never been achieved - such as the European Energy Community, which was advocated at the time of Jacques Delors (who, as we are well aware, always looked at the long-term) and has been taken up by France and Poland with a view to discussion at the European summit in June (see EUROPE 11066).
One of the aspects reportedly encouraging the EU-Russia conflict causes bewilderment. The New York Times has criticised a lobby of big European business which is reportedly allied with the Russian authorities to defend common interests through pressure on their respective authorities. Yet Russia joined the WTO with general support. Moreover, the EU criticises Russia for not respecting all the rules and fights for the principle of free trade to be respected by Moscow. We are quarrelling but, despite the shortfalls, the results are considerable. It is normal that EU-Russia trade is developing more quickly than that between Moscow and Washington. The latest official statistics (for 2012) announce $400 billion for EU-Russia trade next to $26 billion for trade between the US and Russia. In this domain, European and American interests do not always coincide.
Energy: difficult cooperation. This situation broadly concerns the energy domain and the relaunch of Euro-American cooperation seems logical. The Portuguese minister for European Affairs, Bruno Maçaes, has relaunched the idea of a Euro-American agreement on energy, advocating at the same time that the TAFTA agreement on free trade be renounced - the US would export its shale gas to Europe. It's an idea that is already spoken of, but it would require a great deal of time and very complicated technical instruments - both on the US side (for the transport) and on the European side (for receiving it). And it should not be forgotten that shale gas is not allowed in certain member states. This is not therefore a useful project in the face of the current controversy.
Common objective. My comments all have the same objective - to avoid the behaviour, grand-standing, declarations, lamentations and announcements that surround relations between the three big powers from being taken literally, especially in Ukraine and its surroundings. Often, conflicts and disasters that are announced imply local interests, with the top objective being to obtain financing, while Brussels, Moscow and Washington search for compromises that favour their respective interests as much as possible. But not war. (FR)