Cooperation exists. The great world powers, with the USA, Russia and the EU in the lead, want to iron out the differences that separate them as much as possible. It is rather the small- or medium-sized countries involved in these disagreements that make the appeasement difficult. The division of the world into two categories - those who are right and those who are wrong - is too simplistic. The reality is that, even in the current difficult circumstances, the (supposed) enemies have never broken off their cooperation in a great number of sectors. Need I give a few reminders? The USA and Russia have continued to cooperate in the vast area of the knowledge and conquest of space. France is not going back on its agreement (despite the explicit criticism of the US president) to deliver two Mistral war ships to Russia - and what is more, it has confirmed the order of two others. Germany - and it's not alone in this - has not suspended its trade with Russia. And of course, no one in Europe dreams of breaking off the purchase of Russian gas and oil, or the development of the networks linked to this thanks to joint Russian and European enterprise that has for long been cooperating on this.
These observations could be extended with more technical reminders. For example, since Russia became a member of the World Trade Organisation (and how it strived for this membership at the time!), the EU has been most vigilant with regard to Moscow respecting its obligations on the access of European products to the Russian market. Yet, this trade is developing.
Russia-USA-EU cooperation also covers aspects that are very politically sensitive - for example, in the area of nuclear weapons. The objective of all countries eliminating nuclear weapons together and renouncing them for good is explicitly shared - always with a careful eye on the irresponsible or fanatical powers that want to have their turn of possessing them.
Are the Americans taking distance? The US tendency of limiting, or even eliminating, their armed presence in other continents is watched by everyone. Following on from the strict timetable for their definitively leaving Afghanistan, the US resolve of no longer maintaining forces on the ground - either in Syria or in Iraq - was confirmed at the end of last week. Of course, President Obama continues, and will continue, to support the legal Iraqi forces in their fight against ISIS extremists or other jihadist groups - and he doesn't rule out supplying arms and military material when he believes the time is right - but the return of US troops to the ground seems does not seem to be on the cards. Moreover, what US citizen knows the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims. Why support one group rather than the other?
Opinion polls on the other side of the Atlantic show that most Americans do not want their country to prolong its military presence in other continents, and most have not forgotten that Mr Obama was elected to put an end to wars and not to begin new ones or resolve problems elsewhere when his country's security does not oblige it.
NATO remains untouchable. None of this implies in the least that the US plans to cool off its commitments in the Atlantic Alliance. The US is at the forefront in supporting NATO with regard to Russia and in encouraging European countries to renew their armaments. Our Europe Diplomacy & Defence publication, which covers NATO's activity in detail, has pointed out that Ukraine might become a member and might obtain high precision arms in preparation for this. The members of parliament present called for the EU to strengthen its political, financial, economic, material and technical support to Ukraine, and they especially demand “the return of Crimea to under the jurisdiction and control of Kiev”. In other words, Ukraine and a few other countries want the relaunch of the quarrel with Moscow, which several European figures believe is over. One might wonder whether it might not be more useful and realistic to work on a compromise for resuming the normal transit of Russian gas through Ukraine - to the benefit of the EU, of Russia, and of course of Ukraine itself. Those who want conflicts in order to gain direct benefits, in spite of the costs of these conflicts (to be borne by the EU, of course) and the implicit disasters, should not be listened to.
It should not be forgotten that agreements on reciprocal conduct between NATO and Russia exist and are for the most part still valid - if the political will to work together is there.
(FR)