Russia's push into wider Europe

By Andrew Wilson - 05 Nov 08

Dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan may be the most pressing issue in the trans-Atlantic inbox, but agreeing a common position towards Russia may be one of the most difficult.

For Europe, the issue is slowly becoming priority number one, while the U.S will see this is as only one of a number of strategic relationships. Distance also matters more in relation to Russia. Washington does not have Europe’s energy relationship with Russia. The U.S. thinks the EU is addicted to Russian oil and gas; the EU thinks the U.S. is addicted to oil and gas.

Bush’s second term began with the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004; but even on democracy promotion there have been tensions. Many in the EU think the US has double standards; many in the US thinks the EU is too prone to spineless realpolitik. Old Europe is inclined to accept that the West shares some of the blame for Russia’s ‘humiliation’ in the 1990s; the Eastern European states, with fresh memories of Russian domination, have been more eager to confront Moscow alongside the U.S. At the NATO summit in Bucharest in April, for example, Poland, the Czech Republic, and the Baltic States joined the U.S in pushing for Georgia and Ukraine to be given Membership Action Plans (MAP), a key step before full membership. But they were unable to sway Germany and France.

If anything, these different perspectives on Russia have only solidified after the ‘five day war’ in Georgia last August. France and Germany were pressing to resume business-as-usual as soon as Russia superficially complied with the troop withdrawal schedule in October; others felt that this would send completely the wrong signal to both Russia and the neighbourhood states. The ‘new Europe’ was joined by the likes of the UK in Sweden in arguing that the West should be building up its commitment to Russia’s nervous neighbours, not returning to a policy of ‘Russia first’. The Georgia war seems to have tilted the balance of argument within NATO, however, making MAP offers even less likely for Georgia and Ukraine.

But relations with Russia cannot be determined on the European continent alone. Broader perspectives are also of vital importance. Given Russia’s role in the Security Council, its increasingly strategic role in global energy supply and its influence over Iran’s nuclear programme, getting U.S and EU Russia policies aligned will be crucial.

One way to narrow the gap is for the EU to take on some of the soft security functions of NATO in wider Europe, especially in the area of police-and-justice reforms. NATO’s ongoing expansion in the region is highly controversial; Russia does not currently see the EU as a security threat. Russia’s great power complex means that it measures itself against the US, not the EU. NATO will continue to be able to do things in the neighbourhood that the EU cannot; but it would help if the US was slightly less visible in the region, and the EU slightly more so. This will mean the EU taking a tougher line in areas where it has previously been reluctant to tread, like the frozen conflicts and energy security. But instead of struggling over spheres of influence with Russia, the EU and the U.S. should be working together to uphold Western values against the very different political and business culture that underlies the Russian push into the neighbourhood.

3 Comments

Sir,

the case you put forward is compelling. However, what remains a big question for most of us who spend the best years of our lives in Estonian politics (it sounds horrible, doesn’t it?) is whether this is the way the Germans and the French see the world? We could put aside all our differences on the specific policy issues, on rhetoric and general approach to international conflict resolution etc but what still sits in the back of our minds as a fundamental issue is whether the occasional franco-german realpolitik drifts are indeed, occasional and that there is a common value-based understanding still lingering somewhere? Unless we have an positive answer for this, we will forever see the world through the eyes of the Americans. I hope what i wrote made sense.

Andreas | 07 Nov 08, 07 Nov 08 EST

The problem is not that there is not enough EU in the security arena; the problem is that EU does not mean Europe, but France and Germany.
The reality is that Eastern Europe is not Europe, and eastern countries interests and security needs are not recognized as European enough.But if Eeastern Europe is not Europe the way Germany and France are, then vacuum occurs, and it is filled by either the US or the Russian Federation; when there is not Europe in Eastern Europe, there will be American ABM and Russian missiles in there.
The problem is created by the current franco - german policy of inclusiveness, wich is responsible for the current eastern europan power vacuum.The irony is that the franco - german egoism will only further increase the american and russian presence in the east.
The other irony is that this reveils that France and Germany will be able to create truly united Europe, and be relatively independent from the US, only if they found the will to confront Russia and resolutely stand behind any european country, which it is confronted by an outside power.

Angel | Bulgaria | 08 Nov 08, 08 Nov 08 EST

During last conflicts in Caucasus and before in Balkans there has been discussion about EU’s position between conflicting parties -between east and west. I can agree with those who advise that EU should not take sides but rather balance its criticism with conflicting parties. From my point of view this could mean an approach with keywords such as understanding, dialogue and multi-polar world.

The Balkans have been the focus of extensive public attention for a long time yet not many people can honestly claim to have a firm understanding of the region, its history or the complexity of the problems. The same one can say about Caucasus. I would like to claim that one factor has is share 1st creating problems and 2nd making difficult to manage them. This factor is lack of dialogue, which in both regions has created one-sided picture in western mainstream media and peoples mind.

In dialogue, one listens to the other side in order to understand, find meaning, and find agreement. In debate, one listens to the other side in order to find flaws and to counter its arguments. Dialogue assumes that many people have pieces of the answer and that together they can put them into a workable solution. Debate assumes that there is a right answer and that someone has it. Debate can have maybe better headlines in news but it is not for sustainable solutions.

Late Summer the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, outlined his country’s national interests in a set of five key principles and I think one of them fits to this topic. Quate: “The world should be multi-polar. Unipolarity is unacceptable, domination is impermissible. We cannot accept a world order in which all decisions are taken by one country, even such a serious and authoritative country as the United States of America. This kind of world is unstable and fraught with conflict.”

From my point of view West has been living last years in past, today world is coming more and more multi-polar. To copy present situation we need dialogue - EU could facilitate e.g. US/Russia dialogue but then it should avoid to take firm sides.

One common custom is to equate European perspective and EU membership. I totally oppose this equivalence. Almost half of Europe?s territory and 30 % population is not EU members. Does anyone believe, hat e.g. Switzerland and Norway have less European perspective than member-states. Western Europe shows only one part of wholeness of our continent, eastern Europe and also Byzantium are part of continent?s history. Perspective can point East as well than West.

Sc. Western values are too narrow understanding of today’s EU not to mention Europe. Besides radical Islam is also challenging both Europe’s Western and Eastern values. More pluralistic picture is needed.

More my views over Balkans and Caucasus one may find from my BalkanBlog - address http://arirusila.wordpress.com .

Ari Rusila | Jyvaskyla, Finland | 21 Nov 08, 21 Nov 08 EST | www

Financial Times
18 May 12

Sebastian Dullien's article on the myths surrounding a Greek € exit is mentioned in the…

Rzeczpospolita
17 May 12

Silvia Francescon quoted on G20 significance for Polish daily

New York Times
15 May 12

Thomas Klau quoted on Hollande's visit to Berlin

Le Monde
15 May 12

Le Monde quotes ECFR's Policy Brief on China and Germany new special relationship

Read more press >

The European Council on Foreign Relations