Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

January 21, 2009 |  9 comments |  Print | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Andreas  Umland

The EU is Helping Moscow's Neo-Imperialists

Andreas Umland: It appears that in the near future, the European Union monitors will systematically observe the flow of Russian gas to Europe at the Russian-Ukrainian border. Thus, the EU seems to be helping to ease the Russian-Ukrainian confrontation. Or is it?


During the current gas conflict, the EU has pressured Ukraine into a seemingly pragmatic solution for the dispute about Russian gas deliveries to southern, central and western Europe via Ukraine. Neutral observers sent by the EU will assess whether Ukraine is siphoning Russian gas or not. As a result, energy from Russia will soon again arrive regularly to Russia's customers in Europe.

Unfortunately, that is by far not the whole story about this Eastern Slavic quarrel. Contrary to the Kremlin's rhetoric, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is of larger proportions that go beyond purely economic issues. The gas dispute is an integral part of a deeper confrontation between Europe's two largest countries. As the EU appears to be helping to solve the energy dispute between Ukraine and Russia, Western Europe is becoming involved in a major post-Soviet conflict about identity, territory and power.

At no time before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 has Ukraine been an independent state. During most of its history, much or all of Ukrainian territory was controlled from Moscow - whether by the Tsars or the Communist Party of the Soviet Union secretaries. Kiev is the cradle of all three of the Eastern Slavic nations: Ukrainians, Belarusians and Great Russians. As many of the latter perceive Ukraine as a part of Russia and the West as anti-Russian, they observe Ukrainian-Western rapprochement with suspicion, if not hostility. Russian elites see Ukraine as lying within their legitimate sphere of interests, and deny Kiev full sovereignty. The Ukrainian elites seek sustainable independence above all from Russia, and a way for Ukraine into the European Union. The most complicated issue in Ukrainian-Russian relations is the beautiful Black Sea peninsula of Crimea. Not only are most inhabitants of the Crimea ethnic Russians, but the peninsula's largest city, Sevastopol, is the port of the Russian Black Sea fleet. These are only the most important of the various issues that will complicate Russian-Ukrainian relations for many years to come.

So far, one of the reasons that these complications have, in contrast to similar standoffs in Moldova or in the Caucasus, not escalated, was that Russia and Ukraine were in a relationship of mutual dependence. Whereas Ukraine is dependent on Russian gas and oil, Russia depends on Ukraine's cooperation in the transportation of its energy resources to its major clients in the EU. This created a healthy balance in Russian-Ukrainian relations.

With the arrival of EU observers at gas pumping stations on the Russian-Ukrainian border, the mutual interdependence of Russia and Ukraine will be weakened. Now the issue of gas deliveries from Russia to the EU will be less intertwined with other aspects of Ukrainian-Russian relations. That is, of course, exactly what not only Russia, but the West wanted, as citizens of the EU have become hostages to the difficulties of the two former Soviet republics.

But is giving Russia more freedom of movement in Eastern Europe and in its relations with Ukraine in particular really in the interests of the EU and of the West as a whole? The last eight years have seen a constant deterioration of Russian-Western relations - one major issue being Russia's various claims concerning countries of its former empire in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. The presence of international monitors at Ukrainian pumping stations will weaken Russian dependence on Ukraine's compliance with its transportation obligations. The EU monitors' observance of Ukrainian suspension of gas deliveries would immediately transform the formerly Ukrainian-Russian conflict into a standoff between Ukraine and the EU.

Without doubt, this will serve the observation of international law and the interests of the citizens of the EU. However, the people who will reap the largest benefits from EU presence on the Ukrainian-Russian border will be hard-nosed neo-imperialists in Moscow. The EU's latest initiative will provide Moscow with a trump card in the conduct of its future relations with Kiev.

Dr. Andreas Umland teaches at the Catholic University of Eichstaett-Ingolstadt, Upper Bavaria and is a member of the Atlantic Community. He edits the book series "Soviet and Post­Soviet Politics and Society" and compiles the biweekly Russian Nationalism Bulletin.

Related materials from the Atlantic Community:

  • 9
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Marek  Swierczynski

January 21, 2009

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Interesting is the observation by Andreas that the EU's involvement in the gas dispute serves Moscow more than Kiev. But does it mean that Ukraine has lost in this battle? Maybe they had to lower their profile a bit - something very painful for a proud and hot-blooded nation - and they will surely have to pay more for their gas supplies, but all in all Ukraine does not seem to be a loser this time. Certanly Mrs Timoshenko isn't the one that has been defeated, as she managed to sideline her main adversary at home, used the EU as a tool for solving her country's problem and finally struck a deal with Moscow that means much more than just securing gas supplies. Timoshenko appeared wiser than thought. The majority of Ukrainians are not in favour of the sharp pro-western course, they would gladly welcome re-instating close ties with Russia. By solving the gas problem and shaking hands with Putin the prime minister eyes the top-job of Ukraine president. She realised that Russian gas will remain indispensable for Europe for the next 10-20 years but also realised that it will take much longer before Ukraine becomes the EU or NATO member and it is best to settle the row with Russia. She gained both a praise from Brussels, appeased the mighty neigbour and pleased the majority of compatriots. A hat-trick in politics, I'd say. With Putin almost certain to return to the presidency after constitutional amendments that allow him for two new 6-years terms and Timoshenko undoubtedly boosted by the gas agreement, Ukraine and Russia may enter a new phase of relations, that would revive to some extent the imperial weight of the post-Soviet bloc. And how beatiful did they look together on the purple marbles and gold in the magnificent interiors of the Kremlin - as if they were the Queen and King - a day-dream for those who long for restitution of the Russian Empire. Maybe, we're witnessing just that.
Tags: | Ukraine | Russia | Timoshenko | Yushchenko |
 
Christia  Flourentzou

January 21, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
As the author communicates very well, the balanced relation between Moscow and Kiev was the product of a mutual dependence. Thus, it might well be the case that the EU's presence on the Ukrainian -Russian border serves well Russia’s imperial aspirations as it will give Russia a freer hand in its bilateral relation to Ukraine.

There is some element of truth in the author’s position as Russian identity has been largely defined through Russia’s territorial expansion and imperial powers. At the same time, relations between the EU and Russia have never been easy, with parties being responsible for poor relations. On the one hand, Russia has always been skeptical of EU’s Neighborhood Policy, aspiring to a more ‘special’ role in European affairs (one that would allow Russia to influence decision making) given its former status as a superpower. On the other hand, while the EU has always proclaimed a cooperative attitude, when it came to action, policy has never characterized from ambivalence.

Yet, I think that in the latest energy crisis the EU response has been modest and appropriate both in the position it adopted towards Ukraine and the decision to place EU observes on the border. Both Russia and the EU should realize that they have a lot to gain from cooperation in the current interdependent, globalized world. Russia should interpret the attitude of the EU as a step forward and use it to build closer ties rather than use it as an opportunity to stir imperial ambitions.
 
Unregistered User

January 21, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
TIME TO AWAKE FROM TRANSATLANTIC ILLUSIONS

Two coloured revolutions in Georgia and the Ukraine sponsored and adorned by transatlantic unity have brought nothing but confusion. Bush’s spate to expand NATO by including these two subversive handcrafted “democracies” was premeditated as an instrument to vie “resurgent” Russia; the whole evasion being enshrouded behind a veil of “honorable” purposes.
Not the least pertinacity was paid to either diagnose the consequences of hastily ushering these machinated political appendages into power or determine why the cheerleaders of these “democracies” so insistently sought entrance to NATO.
At the same time, the EU bestowed itself the role of an innocent, sinless bystander, whereas EU stolidity and disregard multiplied by US pandering was the fuse that instigated Saakashvili’s intervention of South Ossetia.
Today, Europe is facing its next self-pollinated Gordian knot based on the same quaint transatlantic doctrine, “Russia can never be right”. The present day “orange” political elite in the Ukraine; a regime that the Transatlantic Unity has so lovingly fostered has emerged with an “orange” interpretation of resolving financial problems. Apart from siphoning or bluntly saying sealing Russian gas, transatlantic fostering has brought Yushenko and his associates to the belief, similar to the case of Saakashvili, that there is no limit to unheeding maleficence as long as it implies harm on Russia. Blocking Russia gas supplies, crucial to Europe, found pardon in the “transatlantic agenda”, although it is only fair to say that the negative impact affected mainly on east European countries, some of which are not EU members, and others have little say in European affairs.

Ukraine’s blocking gas supplies to Europe is only a consequence of today’s toothless European policy following up “transatlantic fraternity” stipulating that support to any regime be offered as long as it opposes Russia. What better way would there be to contend Russia other than surrounding it with a military block or by showing how vulnerable its gas supplies were. The US plan of finding an alternative route for gas to Europe is scoring points supported by the Ukraine’s disrupting gas supplies to Europe. Immediate Ukrainian interests fall in unison to US long term aspirations and explain how Yushenko with a popularity rating of 2 % dares to harass both Russia and the EU.

Mrs. Timoshenko has just bargained a 20% discount to what all other European countries pay for gas. The lady has scored her foremost and primary goal in the gas crisis as now there is no need to guess who will become the next Ukrainian president. For this lady the crisis was nothing other than the beginning of her election campaign for future presidency.
Nevertheless, Ukraine’s liability to pay remains highly questionable. No political or economical mechanism has been contrived should the Ukraine wield its ‘privilege” to block gas supplies in the future. Given its distressing financial situation engraved by the world financial crisis, the next blockage crisis is just around the corner. Regretfully, the EU had nothing to say in the matter and will remain hostage to extremely deplorable and unmanageable consequences.
Transatlantic patronizing of “colour” revolutions, the expansion of NATO or the installation of US anti rocket systems in Europe will not disgruntle “resurgent” Russia as it will at length backfire on Europe itself. Georgia has lost all hope of finding a way to integrate South Ossetia and Abkhazia and the Ukraine has become a territory of unpredictable political upheaval. The EU must understand that the time has come to put serious doubt on the Cold War reflexes that constitute today’s transatlantic agenda.


 
Marie-Claude  Corneauster

January 22, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
there is a solution : Russia should join EU, and everything is gonna be OK

http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=Experts%27+Panel&artic...
 
Marek  Swierczynski

January 22, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
To Marie Claude: or the EU should join Russia and then it would be even more OK ;-)
Tags: | EU | Russia |
 
Donald  Stadler

January 22, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
France would never tolerate that, Marek! That would mean the EU would have a clear leader which was not France. Neither would the UK, because they distrust Russia too much.
 
Marie-Claude  Corneauster

January 22, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
:lol:

though, as Gorbatchev wisely predicated it, this is the alternative for the next years, because of the "globalisation" of the wars, like the actual conflict "Hamas vas Israel" (& and the Neocon unilateral solution)

The whole white christian Caucasian population is assaulted by the muslim world first, of any color, then who's gonna follow ????, the major problem of the "whiteys", is that they aren't numerous enough anymore to face it, therefore we are condamned, the whiteys, as a whole, to collaborate with each others.and resist.

an so far Russia is Christian and "whitey" !!!

So, Ms the former eastern soviet Republics, forget a bit your short term views of the aftermaths, there will be a much bigger fight for our surviving, and you'd better prepared to it, the sooner is the best
 
Unregistered User

January 23, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I am a staunch consumer of Mr. Umland's written products on Russia and its politics. One can always count on him to express the opinion of the rabid anti-Russian part of the Ukraine political community. I guess he was duly indoctrinated with the tin-horn russophobia of the Ukraninan "orange "while working for the Taras Shevchenko University in Kiev. Once Mr.Umland even hinted that a democratic transformation of Russia, as in case with the democratic transformation of post World War II Germany, will not be possible withoiut a prolonged foreign (American) occupation.
So, why the article, Mr.Umland? Feeling bitter because of the obvious loss of your team? Get used to that. And by the way, why so much loathing of Russia? Did your grandfather fought on the Eastern front and kept bad memories of it?
 
Colette Grace Mazzucelli

January 23, 2009

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I agree with Dr. Umland's conclusions if only because the presence of EU observers at gas pumping stations on the Russian-Ukrainian border may be perceived and depicted as a "provocation" by those whose ambitions speak to authoritarian behavior and to aspirations of territorial influence. Neither the expansion of NATO nor the installation of missile defense systems will counter those perceptions and will serve to embolden the authoritarians without necessarily serving the interests of those in the region.

NATO is an institution of the Cold War whose focus should continue to adapt to new challenges "out of area" as difficult as this is likely to be. The alliance was originally created in the interests of each of its members. It will require a change of habit for each of the members to agree on action in Afghanistan, for example, because the reflex to cooperate in alliance politics and military cooperation has always been national and focused on the relationship between a potentially resurgent Germany and an expansionist Russia.

Instead of planning to enlarge NATO, the Obama Administration may well articulate policy that aims to decrease nuclear stockpiles even further so as to set an example with Russia in non-proliferation. This may give the Trio Presidency limited time to craft a policy initiative that genuinely deters a Russia-Ukraine standoff from placing the rest of Europe in the middle. These are responsibilities of the future, which can move leaders to stop relying on the mindsets of the past.
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Jean-Paul  Gagnon
Jean-Paul Gagnon
Member since
May 16, 2011

Poll

Should NATO intervene in Syria?