Friendly relations with Russia are a matter of the European Union's survival


On May 24, the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, during a press conference dedicated to the results of the first day of the EU summit in Brussels, spoke on the topic of relations between Russia and the European Union.


Russia is our largest neighbor, Russia and the EU are closely linked, remain neighbors and important trading partners. Russia is an important player in solving global challenges. Therefore, we asked the head of diplomacy Josep Borrell to present a report on Russia and look at relations with it in the light of this report.

- emphasized von der Leyen.

The head of the European Commission also noted that "Russia is challenging the values ​​and interests of the European Union through sabotage, disinformation and cyber attacks." The usual, if not to say, the on-duty attack is another tracing paper from the words of American politicians against the background of words about connections and partnerships, it looks somewhat strange. Especially when you consider that the latest initiative to normalize relations between the Russian Federation and the European Union comes from the latter. After all, this is the third time in four months that the EU has tried to mend relations with Russia. Clumsy, arrogant, contradictory, but trying.

So, in early February, the head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell, paid an official visit to Moscow. The purpose of the trip was to assess the interest of the Russian authorities in normalizing relations with the EU. However, Borrell then came to demand rather than negotiate, so it is not surprising that the negotiations ended in almost nothing.

Nevertheless, already in March, on the eve of the summit of the heads of the EU, the head of the European Council tried to get in touch with Russia. Charles Michel called Vladimir Putin, noting during the conversation that bilateral relations can only improve if the Russian side demonstrates progress on the implementation of the Minsk agreements, as well as stops the practice of "hybrid and cyber attacks" on the EU countries and respects human rights. 

Yes, it was with such a list of far-fetched demands that the head of the European Council tried to improve relations with Russia. Borrel's experience, apparently, taught him nothing.

However, even in such a situation, despite the "unconstructive, sometimes confrontational line" of the European partners, Putin expressed his readiness "to restore a normal depoliticized format of interaction with the European Union, if a real reciprocal interest is shown in this", i.e. left the EU a chance to continue the dialogue. 

And it was precisely an attempt to continue this dialogue that was the speech of von der Leyen, who is obviously trying to find an option for building effective bilateral relations, but at the same time forgetting to leave the haughty and demanding tone that has already become habitual. Indeed, on the one hand, the "tolerant and democratic" European Union is accustomed to criticizing Russia, but on the other hand, relations between the EU structures and the Russian government are already too close to the point of no return.

As a result, speaking on May 24 with von der Leyen, Charles Michel noted: 

Over the past month, we felt it was important to have a deep debate on Russia. And honestly, today's discussion was helpful in preparing the next step. This step is a global report on various areas of our relations with Russia, which we asked to prepare, - he stressed. - It will allow us to form a strategic vision and, possibly, even strategic actions in relation to Russia.

Thus, on the third attempt, the EU leadership nevertheless began to understand that it was better to conduct negotiations constructively, deciding not to miss the chance left by Putin to normalize relations. 

Nevertheless, it is obvious even to a person far from politics that the EU's sudden interest in building constructive relations with Russia cannot but have logical prerequisites. Apparently, senior EU officials gradually began to realize that in the current conditions the European Union cannot afford the absence of a unified position on Russia. 

Incompetent management during the unfolding pandemic, the inability to ensure a fair distribution of resources between the EU countries clearly demonstrated not only the political impotence of the EU structures, but also the lack of equality between its members. Countries are still divided into richer and more influential (Germany, France, Austria) and all the rest. The transitional presidency of the Council of the EU does little to change this situation, being rather a formal instrument and does little to help solve the main problem of the EU as a supranational entity - inequality of its member states.

Thus, the inability to adequately respond to external challenges demonstrated the archaic, bureaucratic nature of the EU structures. The European Union, in its current form, looks less and less necessary both politically and economic point of view (Brexit is an example of this). The absence of a clearly structured management system, a unified army and cultural identity makes the EU a colossus with feet of clay, in which, in the event of a crisis, it is every man for himself. This was clearly demonstrated by the situation with vaccines, when the governments of the more developed EU countries, despite assurances from European officials that the drugs would be purchased for all countries, began to conclude separate contracts for the supply of vaccines. As a result, there was a situation of inequality, when in some countries vaccines were purchased in the millions, and in others - the Czech Republic, for example, at some point it was necessary to rely only on handouts from the lord's table in the form of assistance from neighboring Austria, consisting in the supply of only three tens of thousands of doses.

If such cases become known outside the European Union, then there is no doubt that the awareness of the European establishment about the situation on its territory is much higher. EU officials, like any politician, feel great when the chair begins to wobble under them. Especially when it is not the chair of a single bureaucrat, but the EU's “common table”. After all, the voices of Eurosceptics, which sounded loud already in the early tenths, only intensified during the pandemic. The vaunted Schengen agreement was trampled upon in the blink of an eye. EU member states opened and closed their borders as and when they wanted, without any approval from European regulators. Suddenly it turned out that in a crisis situation each country was left to itself, and the EU structures, instead of trying to unite their members, seemed to have stepped aside, creating a power vacuum.

And it is no coincidence that at this very moment the EU decides to begin to improve relations with Russia. History teaches us that in times of internal political crisis, rulers tend to shift the attention of their citizens from internal to external problems. In previous years, European diplomats did not invent anything new and simply copied the actions of the United States, but the situation with Nord Stream 2, when American foreign policy interests came into direct conflict with European ones, obviously forced the EU to reconsider its view of the world. Not all EU politicians are happy with the role of the general censor and curator, which the United States is trying on. It's just that everyone gets it at different times.

The United States, actively seeking to prevent European countries from completing the construction of a gas pipeline on their territory for their own consumers, behaves as in their own right, which cannot but irritate those who have long seen the true essence of overseas partners through and through. Military bases, nuclear warheads, multibillion-dollar fines for European banks and companies (Deutsche Bank and Volkswagen) - all this looks like a relationship not between partners, but between the metropolis and the dominion. So far, there is no critical mass of dissatisfaction with American actions, the United States has taken root too deeply in European politics after the collapse of the USSR. Nevertheless, the irritation imposed from overseas agenda is gradually accumulating and EU functionaries willy-nilly, but they have to pay attention to it.

So it is quite likely that behind the desire to form a single line towards Russia lies a timid attempt by the EU to show uncharacteristic independence in foreign policy and to pave the way for lifting anti-Russian sanctions. It may sound incredible given the current level of relations, but if you dig deeper, it becomes obvious that there are serious prerequisites for this.

The most important of them is that the EU is now in an economic crisis. The pandemic has hit the EU economy hard. A loss of more than 6 percent of GDP in 2020 for a previously steadily growing region could have disastrous consequences for its poorest members (the Baltic countries, for example). Subsidies and subsidies redistributed from developed countries to undeveloped ones are not taken out of thin air. And given the fact that the territory of the EU does not coincide with the Eurozone, this also creates a dangerous precedent for fragmented monetary policy.

In addition, it is gradually becoming clear that the witch hunt cannot go on forever. Sanctions regimes sooner and later, but must be lifted. And when else to do it, if not now? Mutual economic constraints in a pandemic are not beneficial to anyone other than third parties. Overseas third parties, professing the principle of "divide and conquer" for more than a dozen years.

Actually, this principle is used not only within the framework of relations between Russia and the EU, but also within the European Union itself. The core of the anti-Russian bloc in the EU is primarily the Baltic and Eastern European countries that have joined NATO. They are much more committed to the interests of Uncle Sam, and are in the EU structures largely for the sake of the financial component.

The same Poland, for example, is one of the largest recipients of monetary subsidies allocated by the EU, having received in the period since 2004 more than 180 billion euros in various support programs.

Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, in turn, have long passed the peak of their post-Soviet development - the period of the early-mid XNUMXs, when they were called "Baltic tigers" because of the rapidly growing economy. As it turned out later, the sustainability of this growth was greatly overestimated. Today, these countries are also forced to rely on subsidies from Brussels, which further increases the burden on the already overloaded social sphere with “migrant” contributions.

As a result, the “midlife crisis” that has overtaken the EU poses not only economic or political, but above all existential questions to its leaders. Is the EU needed in its current form? Does he have any future prospects? How does he plan to cope with the consequences of the pandemic, the migration crisis, the failure of the policy of multiculturalism? Is it almost a vassal relationship with the United States forever? And is it worth continuing to spoil relations with its closest neighbor - Russia for the sake of protecting American interests, or is it better to try to restore ties with Moscow?

It is the answers to these questions that will determine not only the future of relations between Russia and the EU, but also the very existence of the European Union. Brussels still has a choice.
Ad
We are open to cooperation with authors in the news and analytical departments. A prerequisite is the ability to quickly analyze the text and check the facts, to write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. We offer flexible working hours and regular payments. Please send your responses with examples of work to [email protected]
31 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Bakht Online Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 27 May 2021 07: 45
    +5
    If the EU is a non-viable design that has shown

    Incompetent management during the unfolding pandemic, the inability to ensure a fair distribution of resources between the EU countries clearly demonstrated not only the political impotence of the EU structures

    And also

    The European Union in its current form looks less and less necessary both from a political and economic point of view (Brexit is an example of this). The absence of a clearly structured management system, a unified army and cultural identity makes the EU a colossus with feet of clay, in which, in the event of a crisis, it is every man for himself.

    then what is the point of Russia to establish relations with this structure? Isn't it better to concentrate on bilateral relations with European countries? And only on the terms of Russia. That is, Russophobic countries should not be viewed as partners. This applies, first of all, to the Baltic countries, Poland, the Czech Republic and in general to the entire Eastern bloc of the EU.
    1. Bitter Offline Bitter
      Bitter (Gleb) 27 May 2021 16: 49
      -2
      .. what is the point of Russia in establishing relations with this structure?

      Russia is today the undisputed champion in the destruction of various unions, the USSR, CMEA are the closest examples. Why not try with the EU as well. The Baltic countries, the Czech Republic and the EU Eastern bloc in general can of course not be considered, they have not quite recovered from the previous union.
      The European Union is needed primarily by the Europeans. Maybe not everyone in Europe understands this yet, but only a united Europe will be able to stand up to defend its interests in partnership with both America and capitalist-oligarchic Russia and communist China.
      1. Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) 27 May 2021 20: 08
        +1
        An Israeli in his repertoire ...
        1. Bitter Offline Bitter
          Bitter (Gleb) 27 May 2021 20: 16
          -1
          I understand your position, such as "collapsed", "drowned" .... but I do not share.
      2. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 28 May 2021 22: 52
        +2
        Europe will be able to withstand defending its interests in partnership with both America and capitalist-oligarchic Russia and communist China.

        And what did you and the Chinese put labels on us, but about America so casually? What is she like? Find it difficult to define? And what about the EU and Germany in particular?
        1. Bitter Offline Bitter
          Bitter (Gleb) 29 May 2021 00: 37
          +1
          Undoubtedly, there are a lot of problems, but the Americans are in one way or another allies of most European countries. Moreover, they do not forget to often remind their allies of this, in word and deed, and problems are solved within the framework of this alliance.
          Russia, at one time, gave all its allies a gorgeous pendal in the ass, they landed after that, with rare exceptions, it is quite obvious where and in what camp.
          But the problems could be solved together, the same Eastern Europe at one time came up with initiatives - there was infrastructure and potential and in some places even today there is. But some gentlemen, the good Russian "democrats" - "communists" were impatient to fill their pockets as soon as possible, with the notorious cursed American dollars.
          What is the label for the Chinese? Nothing can be said about them except that they are pursuing a consistent policy, like the Americans, and the same Iranians, Cubans or North Koreans. Now we have exactly what we fought for. Trust has to be earned, it cannot be bought.
          1. 123 Offline 123
            123 (123) 29 May 2021 10: 42
            +3
            Diplomatic response laughing
            So China is communist, Russia is capitalist-oligarchic, and the US and the EU are just the US and the EU. Very similar to a propaganda cliche. If we start to understand by what criteria the assessment was given, we will surely find out a lot of unsightly things about "just" the US and the EU. yes

            Undoubtedly, there are a lot of problems, but the Americans are in one way or another allies of most European countries. Moreover, they do not forget to often remind their allies of this, in word and deed, and problems are solved within the framework of this alliance.

            Rather "SENIOR ally "and they really don't forget to remind you of that.

            Russia, at one time, gave all its allies a gorgeous pendal in the ass, they landed after that, with rare exceptions, it is quite obvious where and in what camp.

            Wait a bit, your turn will come and land.
            Wasn't Iran a US ally? Saddam and Mubarak were great friends with the United States, and where are they now? Erdogan certainly has his own opinion on this issue.

            But the problems could be solved together, the same Eastern Europe at one time came up with initiatives - there was infrastructure and potential and in some places even today there is. But some gentlemen, the good Russian "democrats" - "communists" were impatient to fill their pockets as soon as possible, with the notorious cursed American dollars.

            What initiatives in Eastern Europe are we talking about?

            What is the label for the Chinese? Nothing can be said about them except that they are pursuing a consistent policy, like the Americans, and the same Iranians, Cubans or North Koreans. Now we have exactly what we fought for. Trust has to be earned, it cannot be bought.

            I have more and more questions laughing I cease to understand what you are writing about. Both the Chinese and the Americans are pursuing a consistent policy, but China is communist, and the United States cannot be called? What do we have? Do the Chinese need to win the EU's trust? And what are they doing wrong?
            1. Bitter Offline Bitter
              Bitter (Gleb) 31 May 2021 23: 19
              +1
              And it doesn't matter that one is "communist" or "cannot be called" inside, outside they are quite able to work together, but neither one nor the other interests of their states for sneakers or any other preferences or karaliks do not give their partners. And for almost a third of their lands, they will definitely knock out something. I have already noticed your ability to sometimes "stop understanding", I will take it into account for the future. hi
              1. 123 Offline 123
                123 (123) 1 June 2021 08: 19
                +2
                And it doesn't matter that one is "communist" or "cannot be called" inside, outside they are quite able to work together, but neither one nor the other interests of their states for sneakers or any other preferences or karaliks do not give their partners. And for almost a third of their lands, they will definitely knock out something.

                An interesting twist. They began with the isolation or separation of China and Russia on the basis of a regime different from others. They came to the conclusion that no matter what regime, the whole point is that the Chinese have taken their own out of the throat, and Russia is giving away everything for the "glass beads" and giving away the land.
                But at the same time, there is no definition of the US, EU and Germany. How do you think they differ from Russia and China is not clear.

                I have already noticed your ability to sometimes "stop understanding", I will take it into account for the future.

                What does it mean to stop understanding? I really don't understand what you mean. Or is it a taboo topic for you? It is impossible to say that Germany is an occupied territory, and therefore tolerates the arrogance of the Poles extorting indemnity? How about lands? Don't you miss Danzig there?
                Can't we mention that the EU is a supranational superstructure molded in the image and likeness of the United States and for the most part controlled by the Americans? Can't you talk out loud about the role of the United States? By the way, if we talk about the oligarchy, in my opinion their influence of capital is much stronger, don't you think?
    2. Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) 27 May 2021 17: 27
      0
      focus on bilateral relations with European countries

      Hey! Can you have a humble opinion?
      It is better to concentrate on the welfare of our ...
      1. Bakht Online Bakht
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 27 May 2021 20: 13
        +4
        Internal well-being depends on external relationships. Everything in nature is interconnected. For starters, let's say trade relations with Germany. We give them gas, they give us technology. And without unnecessary gasket like European bureaucrats.
        1. Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) 27 May 2021 20: 29
          0
          If it's not a secret, my friend, on what goods did you work with what German companies? Naturally, in a personal ...
          1. Bakht Online Bakht
            Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 27 May 2021 20: 54
            +2
            You can also here. With none. I'm generally a techie. So I worked for the same company and with very specific products.
            1. Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) 27 May 2021 20: 56
              +1
              Mercy! The Germans are actually great partners ...
              1. Bakht Online Bakht
                Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 27 May 2021 21: 02
                +3
                I don’t know, seriously or sarcastically. Never mind.
                Trade is a delicate and political matter. Without her - nowhere. So you still have to trade. As it is written in the internet, Russia has the following trade turnover with different countries. China is in first place, Germany is in second.
                I wonder what the Baltics or Poland can offer Russia? Although at one time ships were built at Polish shipyards. But this very time is long gone.
                1. Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) 27 May 2021 21: 09
                  0
                  You, my friend, know better. He worked with the Poles with two factories. Latvian long-range non-citizens drove trucks. They talked about life ...
                  1. Bakht Online Bakht
                    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 27 May 2021 21: 29
                    +3
                    Everyone has their own experience and you meet different people. I worked with the Poles. And for a long time and in a close team. Normal hard workers. But stories don't know. And although talk about politics is prohibited, they talked a lot. They generally accepted my version that Lenin was worse for Poland than Stalin.
                    I worked less with the Germans. But I remember one incident. Horst Wessel put it for a joke. The German was phlegmatic. I just noticed that for listening (!) This song in Germany it is quite possible to get a real term.
                    1. Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) 27 May 2021 21: 32
                      +1
                      So that's great! I hope I agree that both Polish and German beers are wonderful ...
                      1. Bakht Online Bakht
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 27 May 2021 21: 48
                        +1
                        German is better
                    2. Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) 27 May 2021 21: 48
                      0
                      PS: get on the plane-train-wheelbarrow and drive.
                      Come back, share .. drinks
      2. Bitter Offline Bitter
        Bitter (Gleb) 29 May 2021 00: 52
        0
        Everyone wants to sleep well, eat a lot, and vice versa, which means we need to look for approaches to mutually beneficial exchange and trade. You don't have to talk about friendship, because a purely business relationship is much better than enmity. Agree, it's impossible to be friends with everyone.
  2. Alexzn Offline Alexzn
    Alexzn (Alexander) 27 May 2021 07: 56
    0
    Poor Europe, they want to kidnap it again ... Following Belarus ... tertium non datur. ,,
  3. Bulanov Online Bulanov
    Bulanov (Vladimir) 27 May 2021 08: 57
    0
    The EU resembles a spoiled queen from "12 months", rudely demanding from a girl to take her home from a dark forest.
  4. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 27 May 2021 09: 49
    +3
    The EU is developing in all directions - territorial (Eastern Partnership and Mediterranean Union), economic, technical, political, military, scientific, social, etc.
    Development inevitably leads to a gradual decrease in the EU's dependence on the United States and the emergence of the third world center after the United States and China, and the common interests of the ruling classes of the United States and the EU predetermines the conclusion of the Transatlantic Alliance.
    The end of the EU is predicted in the Bible - the dream of King Nebuchadnezzar.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  5. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 27 May 2021 11: 36
    0
    The author again pulled the owl onto the globe.
    Russia, even with its perpetual supply of raw materials, has never been the EU's main trading partner.
    And the quotes quoted are clearly different in meaning than the author interprets ...
  6. Radziminsky Victor (Radziminsky Victor) 27 May 2021 20: 10
    0
    The United States and Britain do not care from the height of their banks on the "prosperity" of Europe.
    The weaker and more dependent competitors are, the easier it is to rule the world.
    This applies to both Russia and Europe.
    Therefore, the more closely Russia ties itself with NATO with the Gazprom "streams"
    the more obviously it is exposed, under the inevitable in the future, a blow to both Europe and Russia.

    Remember what the US-Britain did for their prosperity with Europe and the USSR
    during the Second World War.
    They - the situation that raises them above all - will definitely want to repeat.

    PS
    But of course there is also China now. Now everything is more complicated.
    But the US-Britain can negotiate with China on the division of the world.
    Unfortunately, this is not excluded.
    1. Vladest Offline Vladest
      Vladest (Vladimir) 28 May 2021 23: 19
      -2
      Quote: Viktor Radziminsky
      Remember that USA-Britain

      This especially delighted me. And especially the link between Britain and the United States. England has been in VM2 since September 1st 1939 in the war against Germany. And after the defeat of France by the Germans, she was face to face with the Nazis. until June 22, 1941. After MV2, all of Europe was in ruin and there were no prospects for recovery. What prompted the US to develop the Marshall Plan. And only thanks to him ALL of Europe began to "flourish". And Britain in particular.

      The total amount of appropriations under the Marshall plan (from April 4, 1948 to December 1951) amounted to about 13 billion [P 1]. dollars, with the bulk of the UK (2,8 billion), France (2,5 billion), Italy (1,3 billion), West Germany (1,3 billion), the Netherlands (1 billion).

      What should we remember?

      Remember what the US-Britain did for their prosperity
      1. Radziminsky Victor (Radziminsky Victor) 28 May 2021 23: 40
        0
        In the event of a new collapse of Europe and (partially) Russia - banks and special services
        The United States and Britain will gladly propose a new Marshall Plan.
        1. Vladest Offline Vladest
          Vladest (Vladimir) 28 May 2021 23: 42
          -2
          There is no such thing on the Horizon yet. We will observe the agony of Lukashenskaya Belarus. This is quite visible.
          The USSR rejected the Marshall Plan.
  7. Vladest Offline Vladest
    Vladest (Vladimir) 28 May 2021 23: 05
    -2
    Could it be that 5-6 %% of the RF in the EU trade turnover can somehow seriously influence?
  8. SemVale Offline SemVale
    SemVale (Vale) 4 June 2021 23: 23
    -3
    Economy of the EU and RF. Labor productivity and potential.
    Where do four of the five dollars and euros received from the sale of hydrocarbons flow?
    Money flows to where they work.
    How did Putin promise to catch up with Portugal in terms of GDP? And how did it happen?