RSS

It is striking how much Russia polarises Western elites, how the debate on Russia is dominated by hot-headed emotions rather than rationality and farsightedness. Conservatives in Central and Eastern Europe succumb to this temptation and engage in Russia bashing rather than making constructive proposals on how we should deal with present-day Russia.

Take, for example, former Czech Defense Minister and Ambassador to Russia Lubos Dobrovsky, who has called on the West to finally treat Russia as an enemy. He mocks EU Russia policy as being subservient and refers to Germany's Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier as a "political clone of the Russian employee Gerhard Schröder."

When it comes to Russia, our political culture is not particularly sophisticated: it's all black or white, good or evil, with hardly anything in between. Anyone who makes even the slightest attempt to question the usual criticism of Russia is dismissed as an anti-Western apologist. This is not a plea to uncritically accept everything that Medvedev and Putin say and do. On the contrary, Russia's attempt to challenge Georgian territorial integrity is, quite clearly, not acceptable. Medvedev's recent rhetoric on the Russian sphere of "privileged interests" and "the need to protect the lives and dignity of Russian citizens, wherever they may be" has worrisome Soviet undertones and clashes with his previous emphasis on the sanctity of international law.

My concern is a different one. Russia is splitting Europe in the same way the Iraq War did: "Old Europe", mainly Germany and France, appears to be insensitive to recent history in Central Eastern Europe, while "New Europe", i.e. Czech Republic, Poland and the Baltics, appears to derive some strange sort of Schadenfreude from worsening relations with Russia .

So who is right? Russian well-wishers like former Chancellor Schröder, or cold warriors like outgoing US vice-president Dick Cheney and a substantial part of New Europe's foreign policy elite? I would argue that neither is correct. The problem is that when the debate is shaped by agenda-setters like the above, the manoeuvring room for more pragmatic political solutions becomes increasingly constricted. In fact, both the friends of Russia and the Russophobe experts who call for the country's isolation play into the hands of cold warriors. As the Russian political scientist Lilia Shevtsova argues in a recent essay, both extremes help the Russian authoritarian regime solve the problems of its own preservation.

Let us criticize and oppose Russia in cases where our values and security interests are challenged. But let us not content ourselves with threatening language as a foreign policy instrument. Mere Russia bashing will neither intimidate nor tame Moscow. Difficult as it may be for some of us to accept, is it not in our own interest to ask questions like: What needs to be done in order to overcome the present confrontation? Or, how we can better integrate Russia into the world order and encourage it to be a more responsible player? How can we help Russia overcome its suspicion of the West and its zero-sum thinking without compromising our interests and values? How can we get Russian (state) companies to accept EU standards of corporate governance, transparency and environmental protection?

Declaring at the outset of negotiations that we will treat Russia as an enemy is - diplomatically speaking - not particularly results-oriented and effective. This should be common sense. After all, I don't tell my boss he is a mean capitalist exploiter when I'm asking for a salary increase. Mistrust and animosity rarely create a good breeding ground for successful negotiations.

Whether in talks about the future of the Druzhba oil pipeline or about Russian plans to station Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad, dialogue and confidence building measures will be a better guide than public threats of containment. The discredited and soon to be unemployed neo-cons in Washington never grasped this point but Old and New Europeans should.

Tobias Wolny is an Eastern Europe specialist and worked in the Office of the President of the Czech Republic in the 1990s. He currently works as a Policy Director for BP Alternative Energy and is a founding members of the Atlantic Initiative.

January 2, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVN24, Diamond Contributor (1102)

• 5
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

"Russia is splitting Europe in the same way the Iraq War did" - claims the Author, but I would say it is splitting Europe much more than Iraq War did. First, Europe was not dependent on energy supplies neither from the US nor Iraq and though it was hit by the crude oil price hike, it had contingecy on the table to avoid a crisis. In case of Russian supplies many european countries simply do not have an option, the further to the East, the more serious the problem is, as to be seen in the never-ending story of Ukraine-Russia gas dispute. Second, Russia's position towards the West is dynamically changing, from a friend to a challenger on one hand but also from an isolated, mediocre economical partner to almost indispensable supplier on the other. Russia is also getting importance on the global scene, in relation to China, India and Latin America - and the North Atlantic West will have to take that into account. One day, Russian supplies may find a route eastwards rather than westwards and Europe should be prepared for that - I guess that is a nightmare to many European governments. Whether ballistic missiles in the heart of Europe are the price for their peace of minds, that is a question.

January 5, 2009

Goran Radakovic, , Silver Contributor (28)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

I also think that Russia is becoming a major political player internationally and it ought to be treated strategically and with farsightedness. It is important to build a constructive relationship with the Russian Government, especially considering that Russia is one of the most important suppliers of gas to the rest of Europe (and not only the EU).

The most recent example is Serbia, which has signed a 'deal of the century' (dubbed in some more political circles) with Russia to build a gas pipeline through the country (part of South Stream) and a significant underground gas storage. Interestingly, in return Serbia it has sold a majority package (51%) of one of the most important and profitable state oil companies NIS to Gazprom. As the deal was ratified in the Serbian Parliament, many have argued that this deal will secure Serbia's gas future and will strengthen the country's regional political position. Certainly, Russia's challenge to the EU is already being felt as a number of other European countries have signed similar deals (Bulgaria). It puts to question the success of the EU policies in this part of Europe.

Increasing Russian presence in the rest of Europe is becoming a reality. One that has created divisions amongst already politically divided elites in Europe. Moreover, the more the European elites encourage reservations in relation to Russia, the more the Russian President Medvedev is going to be inclined to use aggressive strategy to gain economic/political advantages in Europe. However, accepting Russia as an important economic/political partner to the rest of Europe, could create a more mutually transparent environment discourage prejudices on both sides.

January 8, 2009

Marie Claude

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

so, will our "greeny" neighbours change their mind about nuclear energy ? cause, France can't fill the blanks for all of them when Russia is in bad mood !!!

"My concern is a different one. Russia is splitting Europe in the same way the Iraq War did: "Old Europe", mainly Germany and France, appears to be insensitive to recent history in Central Eastern Europe, while "New Europe", i.e. Czech Republic, Poland and the Baltics, appears to derive some strange sort of Schadenfreude from worsening relations with Russia "

that's may-be cause these central eastern Europe states were/are still looking after the "American Dream" rather than after the "old Europe" one, but didn't/don't split on its subventions though !!!!

"One day, Russian supplies may find a route eastwards rather than westwards and Europe should be prepared for that - I guess that is a nightmare to many European governments. Whether ballistic missiles in the heart of Europe are the price for their peace of minds, that is a question."

I am afraid that's the probable scenario, though Russia is a white caucasian and a christian country, so I still expect that the normal and logic inclination, there, is
to maintain the "good" relations with "brothers" in color and religion, thus more because the Russians are getting less and less numerous (their birth ratio is very low and the expectation of life for men is the lower in Europe)

Putin still has credit cause he managed to get Russia out of the anarchy left by Elsine, though the money crisis and his bullying behaviour for his gaz and oil european customers might change his image there too,he may become the "man to eliminate", though this means that there will be a new revolution there, probably misery will make it !

So, we should care for not humiliating the Russian population, that is the one that has paid the most with its blood because of its evil marxist leaders, for liberating Europe from an even more evil leader, Hitler, we should carry on finding a way to help them to abandon their soviet bullying behaviour, we should not , as a whole, (cause France is energy independant) stay dependant of their energy supply, we should have more major cards in our game relationships, so that also means that the EU countries would not dengrate each others, because one leader pulls more on the medias actuality show... but it's like "I had a dream"...

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org