At first sight, reality has demolished two important positions defended over the years by this column: firstly, development of a permanent dialogue between the EU and Russia that will normalise their relations rather than the avalanche of retaliatory measures that are ruinous for both parties; and secondly, the exit of Greece from the eurozone if it cannot abide by the rules.
In both instances, radical change is taking place or is expected, deserving of some consideration. My topic today is the Russian issue; the Greek problem will be analysed in the next commentary.
Russian moves. Moscow has taken the first step towards easing relations with the EU through a Foreign Ministry communique (fully reported in our newsletter at the end of last week). In substance, the communique condemns the policy of “sanctions that lead nowhere and that only harm the peoples and economies of our countries” and regrets that, in the EU, “an aggressive minority” is using the Ukrainian crisis to “thwart the good partnership between Russia and the EU”. At the same time, the Russian ambassador to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov, has issued a statement, through the Russian agency Tass, in which he states that the EU “is subjecting the partnership between Russian and the EU to further tests, which is regrettable” (see EUROPE 11243).
Of course, the Russian attitude has to be borne out by the facts. Nonetheless these statements are significant. Why can the EU not respond in a similar tone? The EU must certainly not soften its firmness in defence of its interests. The objective is for dialogue to replace the seemingly automatic use of reciprocal sanctions or, at least, for any negotiation not to be ruled out a priori.
No common policy? It cannot be denied that, in the EU, there are political forces and member states reticent about, or quite frankly opposed to, any cooperation with Russia. Historic, and especially geographical, reasons can justify and explain these attitudes. One can understand that the current president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, being Polish, is for firmness. But some member states do not disguise their desire for direct dialogue with Moscow. The editor of our publication EDD argues (in No 764 of 3 February) that the EU does not really have a common foreign policy but acts through a succession of compromises that strive to square the circle of the immediate interests of the various member states. Mr Jehin puts the member states into one of three groups: those which are concerned about Russia's imperialist policy (Poland, the Baltic States, Romania and others); those that would like to see cooperation with Russia (including France, Hungary and Greece); and those which, in his view, have traditionally aligned themselves with American positions (United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, for instance). In this context, German interests would seem to be less uniform (I would remind you that Ms Merkel speaks Russian and regularly speaks by telephone to Mr Putin).
Giving the people a voice. One has to wonder why, to my knowledge, no one has asked a very simple question: why not let the peoples concerned speak? At least two EU countries have gone through situations roughly similar to the more dramatic one Ukraine is going through: in the United Kingdom, the people of Scotland negotiated and then voted on the regime they wanted; in Spain, some in Catalonia aspire to independence. Both of these were conducted politically and legally; the time of warfare is thankfully over. This is the way the Ukrainian problem must develop. Nor must it be forgotten that those we call Russian separatists are real Russians.
Moscow will, of course, have to make concessions. How can it be, for example, that the birthplace of Emmanuel Kant (formerly Königsberg, now Kaliningrad) is a small Russian enclave in German territory? It's true that the Russians have done their best to give this town a special character that justifies their presence. Nonetheless, having a bit of Russia on foreign soil remains a strange anomaly.
If everyone puts in the effort required of them, the situation will be better for all.
(FR)