Cooperation is up and running again, but… One aspect of this week's European Council will not raise any controversy - the EU's relationship with Russia. The resumption of cooperation and the negotiations over a partnership agreement have been decided upon in practice. This is not just a question of political calculations and timing, but is also being actively sought by both sides.

This does not in any way mean that the future will be easy or that disagreements have been ironed out. On the contrary, much controversy continues to exist, both on the political front (the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and problems ahead with Ukraine and the Crimea) and on the economic and, above all, energy fronts too. The talks will be tough, but the EU never considered the option of not getting back to the negotiating table. A severing of ties was recommended by some in the United States and some highly sensitive (and rightly so) European countries were hesitant due to past experience. They needed reassurance, and received it. In the EU as a whole, the idea of breaking with Russia only existed in the minds of the over-excited or ignorant few so the decision to get back to the table flowed perfectly naturally.

Positive but realistic. Some parties made serious arguments in favour of cooperation. Eneko Landaburu, the high-ranking European Commission official responsible for negotiating the partnership deal at technical level, illustrated the reciprocal demand for cooperation on economic and energy issues (see issue 9751), while at the same time stressing political, historical and cultural questions. After the collapse of the USSR, Russia suffered one humiliation after another and reacted like an injured bear at first. This has not entirely gone away but Russia's cooperation with Europe and the United States has gradually increased, not only on the economic front but also politically and militarily: Iran, Afghanistan, Chad, count-terrorism and greater use of the euro. But one should not ignore or underestimate the severe disagreements: recognising the independence of the South Ossetia and Abkhazia regions that are legally part of Georgia, reintroducing the idea of zones of influence, confirmed and even strengthened restrictions on investments, etc. Europe must not hide its head in the sand. We are entitled to smile wryly at Moscow's claims that Gazprom acts on purely commercial grounds, or that reciprocity is required everywhere in the partnership agreement. The EU should not abandon its demands for democracy and human rights, but should be aware that these concepts are not always interpreted in the same manner and words do not always have the same meaning or value.

Encouraging reactions and questions. Russia's reaction has on the whole been encouraging (see issue 9754). Moscow prefers to talk about regions where Russia has special interests rather than zones of influence (an American idea in my opinion, like the idea of encircling); and there is total flexibility about the nature of relations with such regions. Nothing is imposed. Moscow has no objection to the former USSR republics extending their links with the EU - that's their own business. What Russia opposes is the idea of them joining NATO. Moscow is prepared be directly involved in the Nabucco project (a gas pipeline from Asia to the EU, bypassing Russia).

The EU wants Russia to drop its tactic of playing off one EU member state against another, in the economy or, above all, energy. It tried this politically over the Georgian ceasefire but Nicolas Sarkozy did not give way over the physical presence of representatives of the European institutions (Barroso and Solana) at the meeting in Moscow or over the presence of the EU flag. This is a short-term tactic, unless the EU itself justifies it by refusing to speak with one voice on energy issues, for example.

In theory, there is no longer an ideological conflict between Europe and Russia like in the old Cold War days. The conflicts that exist are geopolitical, arising from the fact that the EU and Russia share the same neighbours. These conflicts can be resolved by a desire to cooperate. This week's European Council is expected to look at Russia in the same spirit as prevailed at the impromptu meeting in Evian last week between Nicolas Sarkozy and Dimitri Medvedev, namely openness, clarity and plain speaking. This approach is needed for political issues but also, above all, for the vital issue of energy, where one challenge after another is lining up. I will be returning to this.

(F.R./transl.fl)