Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

July 7, 2008 |  8 comments |  Print | E-Mail Your Opinion  

valentine anatolevich akishkin

Further Deterioration Of Relations With Russia

valentine anatolevich akishkin: Tilt and mistrust are ruling European politics making the EU an ineffective and politically feeble conglomerate of countries incapable of working out joint foreign and defense policies. World challenges grow while EU member states sit brawling on the roadside of events.

 

Much talk has recently risen about the US seeking optional military configurations given the fact that NATO has grown into a bulky and poorly manageable organisation. However, there is no other foreseeable combination of countries that will form a military block that could be manipulated to the benefit of the US better than the EU. Though EU members constitute an extensive military block, they have always been reliant on the US for decision making. The best the coalition can do today, without the patronage of the US, is to keep its fellow members from involving themselves in a brotherly tussle.

Though Russia has always played the role of the bad guy, it has nonetheless been a consolidating factor for Europe. Nothing could have been so impelling to help merge the many diversely opposed interests of European countries into a common military block than a "mortal enemy."

As things stand, it looks like Russia will be granted the "honour" to proceed on with its "consolidating" role as there is no notable volition on behalf of EU countries to relieve Russia of its unifying function.

US antimissile systems in Europe and the enlargement of NATO are just a few of the matters on which no consensus has been reached among EU member states. This shows that there is no common security policy within the block and block members are left free to act as they like. The rifts in the block provide the US administration a free hand in picking its allies while engaging itself in its next endeavor and thus consigning further political chaos to EU foreign matters.

Access to Russian energy resources has caused dubiety within the EU and shows that it is just as difficult to reach accord within the EU in economic matters. An example is the "North Stream" gas pipeline heading for Germany which has become a bone of contention giving Germany a prevailing position and making it Europe's central gas distributor. It seems the supremacy of Germany is what many state members dread more than the shortage of energy resources.

In view of this, Russia has very little hope of reaching an agreement on the Energy Charter with this poorly manageable conglomerate of 27 countries which allows any one of its member states to veto agreements.

There are no terms that Russia would be ready to accept which would bring it in line with such a motley of mutually exclusive sentiments. Democracy has its limits and is not the framework that can unify and subordinate the inspirations of all. The EU is compelled to remain ineffective and incapable while mistrust and suspicion remain dominating factors preventing any headway in critical matters. Unfortunately, the EU has not grown to become a factor determining world policy and there is little hope that it will ever grow into anything more than an appendix to US foreign policy.

  • 6
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
Tags: | Russia EU relations |
 
Comments
Ilyas M. Mohsin

July 8, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Quite a realistic apparaisal but couched in harsh words. However, one would have to take an issue with the assertion that Russia is for the consolidation process in EU. History, ethos and demands of strategy militate against such a stance on a lon-term basis.
There is little that EU can do while the world awaits the results of the US presidential race. I wonder if EU would be interested in wasting about $
600 million as was done by the G8, as per CNN, on a summit in Japan which has been a subject of unfriendly aspersions the world over.
 
Marek  Swierczynski

July 9, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
In a strange, strong and rather unexpected move, the European Parliament by huge majority endorsed a report by the Committee of Petitions, demanding more environmental scrutiny by the EU institutions over the Nord Stream gas pipeline. Back door opposition towards the main Russo-German strategic project passed through the European Parliament, a body controlled by a German MEP and one that was often accused of hiding Russian "Trojans" inside the EU. Of course, the move would not block the pipeline - despite quiet hopes by the Baltic States and Poland - but the sheer fact that it was adopted tell quite a bit abot how the EU's mood towards Russia has evolved recently. The resolution on the Nord Stream touches so many issues, not only environmental, that it is in fact an indictment bill, the first one coined on such a high political level and with such a unanymous support. The pro-Russian party in the EU will perhaps claim that Russophobia is on the rise and that the EP fell victim of a Polish-Baltic plot. Whether it makes Russia and Germany rethink the pipeline's route, I personally doubt, but the EU's largest country and the EU's largest energy partner - seen as hegemon by some Europeans - know from this time on that someone's watching.
Tags: | Russia | EU | Germany | European Energy Policy | gas | pipeline |
 
Gaelle Christine Fisher

July 10, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"Democracy has its limits and is not the framework that can unify and subordinate the inspirations of all."

This sentence intrigues me. Indeed, democracy involves a certain amount of compromise and cannot provide solutions that prove satisfactory for all. But the expression “is not the framework” implies there is a more appropriate alternative and I would be most curious to know what it is.

European members are in effect struggling to reach consensus in many areas. But the European project in itself is an ambitious enterprise that will require many attempts and a great deal of patience if it is to succeed.

Finally, with respect to energy policy – since this seems to be the focus of the article -, I believe the mistrust and the suspicion referred to is a trait of the relationship between the 27 democracies and Russia rather than a trait of 27 democracies' relationship to one another.
Tags: | Russia | EU | European Energy Policy |
 
Andreas  Umland

July 11, 2008

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Contrary to the first commentator's assessment that the above article is a "realistic apparaisal," I think Akishkin's text is merely an apt reflection of the way in which most Russians think about the world today. It is all about the resurging, but misunderstood Russia, and the imperialist, yet somehow still respected US, and how the Central and West European countries fit in that seemingly eternal rivalry. This story is repeated on an almost hourly basis in Russian mass media. It is less Bush's idiocies or the EU's deficiencies, but exactly Akishkin's world view - a common place in Russia today - that is the main problem in both Russian-American and Russian-European relations. Unless the Russians stop believing their own propaganda and get real about the world we live in today, there is little chance for lasting Russian-Western rapprochement.
 
valentine anatolevich akishkin

July 12, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Thank you Christine for your comment!
In respond to comment number “three” - "Democracy has its limits and is not the framework that can unify and subordinate the inspirations of all."
I would be only too happy to learn that the EU has finally become an essential element of international policy, a counterweight to China, Russia, the US or whoever else. A multi-polar world would be a safer place for everybody.
As things are, there is no way 27 countries can unite on principles where decisions have to be wavered by a 100 % vote. Democracy means the majority overweighs the minority while considering as much as possible the notions of the latter. I am sorry to constitute that in the case of the EU no unified decision can be ever be made when things touch on delicate issues. This clumsy construction fits perfectly into a “US multi-threat” doctrine promoted on the pages of this very site by Bruce Berkowitz. The US must be capable of facing a range of threats says the article. The idea in itself is not bad if there were any room left in this construction for an inexistent opinion of the EU. Life shows us that discord in the EU helps the US to a pick a choice of allies from a squad of 27 role players while promoting its own interests.
Extract from Bruce Berkwitz’s article:
In this kind of world, the goal of the United States should simply be to keep the strategic advantage, so that we have as much influence over the course of events and can generally guide then in a direction that favors us. This may not seem as inspiring as "making the world safe for democracy," or as decisive as relegating the Soviet Union to "the ash heap of history." But it is, in fact, the task ahead of us, and is essential if we hope to achieve our more idealistic goals of promoting freedom, peace, opportunity, and prosperity.

 
valentine anatolevich akishkin

July 12, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear Andreas!
What the world needs today is a means of resolving threats, I doubt there could ever be any commonly agreed upon political etiquette suitable for all countries, and I am not an ideologist that would dare to proclaim that there will ever be godly accord among so many different countries of the world. The more there are independent decision making centers the better the counterbalance. Today one country is ruling the world and as you mentioned “still” popular.
The problem is that while building a construction of any kind, due attention should be paid to its foundation.
The UE lacks the basic elements that could make a firm footing for integration. The manner in which the EU is expanding while remaining a politically immature construction is democracy turned inside out. The tail wags the dog. That is what is happening with the deployment of antimissile rockets in Europe, the Energy Charter with Russia, the war in Iraq etc. Personally, I always looked forward to the idea of a combined Europe – what could be better. My questions are quite simple: Does the EU support the deployment of rockets in Europe? Does the EU support the idea of expanding the flow of energy resources from Russia? Does the EU support the war in Iraq? Does the EU support American’s effort in Afghanistan? Does the EU support the independence of Kosovo? Etc, etc …
The EU as a unified organization has no clear answer to these questions, the reason why these questions are decided elsewhere.

Valentine Akishkin
 
Heinrich  Bonnenberg

July 13, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
EU is a gigantic story of success:
1. A market of about 500 million people has been organized which ensures social equity and prosperity, as outlook for the newcomers, too, not avoiding tough, strengthening competition in production, culture, science and so on and all that for small money which each member country has to pay for the organization in Brussels, Strasbourg, Luxemburg, Frankfort and so on, less than 1 % of GNP,
2. Peace among countries which attacked one another through the centuries.
3. A federalist Union of homelands and regions being able to maintain their particularities, not a centralized state.

EU is a league of 27 democracies based on values having been developed in Western Europe about centuries. EU is envisaged by many countries to be their future. EU has committed itself in the Copenhagen criteria: “Membership requires that candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and, protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union. Membership presupposes the candidate's ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.” For Turkey for example, the acceptance of these criteria is like the second revolution after the first by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk—extremely fruitful for occident and orient and the world.

For the most part, the dispute about Nord Stream is not a foreign political struggle, it is a typically democratic bazaar discussion about the streams of money to each country’s pocket. The owners of the Nord Stream have already ordered all parts, mainly the tubes produced by Europipe and have already acquired the landing site at Lubmin at German Baltic sea, with Energiewerke Nord, where ,by the way, I am acting as chairman of the supervisory board.

I am sure EU will succeed to find a better management system for the future. As EU is a real democratic system this finding needs time, a typical fact for a democracy. That is more a sign of strength than a sign of weakness. People who do not understand democracy are not capable to understand the development and the procedures in EU, less than ever the democratic voting of the honest Irish fishermen. That is no weakness!

EU and US, together 800 million people, have changed from being trade partners to being capital partners because of very high investments of EU companies in US and from US companies in EU, very many billions. EU is not the heeler of US. The both are strong business partners compensating some poorness of decision of the partner, sometimes of this one, sometimes of that one. Both are strongly affiliated democracies liking discussions between themselves, typical for democratic behaviour. It should not be understood to be weakness, of each of them.
 
Gaelle Christine Fisher

July 14, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Mr Akishkin,

Thank you very much for your response. It has undoubtedly clarified your argument and allows me to understand better the perspective from which you are writing. I still like to believe the US does not have such an upper hand over the policy decisions of individual countries in Europe and that in most cases, when EU members are willing to cooperate, they are – within their means - complementary rather than auxiliary to the US.

 

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

Anna  Przybyll
Anna Przybyll
"A wise old owl lived in an oak The more he..."

Poll

Should NATO intervene in Syria?