Russia and the European Union: dialogue is one of three key dimensions

Russia Must Listen to the European Union
Victor Ângelo

Today, 21 November, was meant to be the day when American sanctions against Rosneft and Lukoil, two giant Russian conglomerates in the oil and gas sectors, would come into effect. This decision by President Donald Trump, taken a month ago, was recently amended with respect to Lukoil. The company now has until 13 December to sell its foreign assets and until April next year to cease all activities in Bulgaria. Several firms are interested in purchasing the assets in question, but transactions can only be finalised once approved by the Trump administration.

Lukoil, a privately owned company listed on stock exchanges, is a global colossus. Most of its operations take place outside Russia. The profits and dividends it generates weigh heavily on the Russian economy. The decision taken by Washington puts Lukoil’s survival in jeopardy.

For its part, Rosneft, a company controlled by the Kremlin, is the largest contributor to the budget of the Russian Federation. Should the sanctions become effective, they will have a significant impact on the country’s public finances.

The question that remains unanswered, for now, is clear: will the loss of revenue and the resulting budgetary imbalances be enough to convince the Kremlin that there is an urgent need for peace negotiations? That is Trump’s intention. My experience tells me that such an outcome is unlikely. Sanctions, by themselves, tend to have a slow impact on the policies they aim to change.

Nevertheless, I support the application of sanctions against regimes that act outside international law. In this particular case, it is about significantly reducing the financial base and other means that enable Russia to continue its unacceptable aggression against Ukraine. It is also about sending a strong political message of absolute condemnation.

There are no conditions for the United Nations Security Council to approve any package of sanctions targeting Russia. That would, in principle, be the appropriate process. Since it is not possible, each State must decide on the restrictions and pressure it is prepared to exert. However, it must respect humanitarian principles – sanctions must not endanger the lives of citizens in the targeted country – and the sovereignty of third States. They should also aim to contribute to resolving the crisis or conflict, and in this case, to stopping the unjustifiable war for which Russia is responsible.

In my view, neither a ceasefire nor peace are part of Vladimir Putin’s immediate plans. On the contrary, it seems we will continue to witness the intensification of destruction and death in Ukraine, sanctioned by Russia. The Kremlin is betting on war and is convinced it will eventually subjugate Ukraine. The information coming from Moscow indicates that Putin listens less and less to diplomats, including Sergey Lavrov. His main advisers come from the political police apparatus and the economic sphere. Consider who will represent him at the G20 summit this weekend in South Africa: not the Foreign Minister, Lavrov, but the Deputy Chief of the Presidential Executive Office, Maxim Oreshkin. He is an apparatchik with a background entirely linked to the management of the national economy. Concern for economic stability is a priority for Putin. This confirms the importance of sanctions in the economic and financial sectors.

Putin dreams of a victory that will see his name included in the history books of “great and holy” Russia, as he likes to say. His statements, endlessly repeated by the group that controls power and the media in Moscow, reveal a leader who only accepts negotiations with the great powers of the world – Donald Trump and Xi Jinping. The others are seen as minor players, of no value in the international geopolitical chess game. Putin does not wish to waste time in dialogue with European leaders.

The EU must respond on three fronts: maintain aid to Ukraine, rigorously apply the sanctions already approved, and show readiness to begin a serious process of talks with Russian leaders.

With regard to negotiations, my suggestion is simple: António Costa, as President of the European Council, must receive a mandate from the Member States granting the necessary authority to make contact with Putin. His office would then seek to establish lines of communication with the Kremlin, in order to convince the Russians that a cycle of talks between Putin and Costa could be beneficial for both parties and vital for the internal interests of the Russian Federation, as well as for peace in Europe.

There is urgency in moving forward on this front, before the US and Russia reach an agreement over the heads and interests of Europeans. Some will say this scenario is increasingly plausible.

All this must be done without illusions and with great perseverance on the European side. The messages coming from the Kremlin show that Putin sees any possible negotiation as an exercise in asserting his views and ambitions. For him, flexibility, concessions, the search for balance – all these are seen as weakness and admission of mistakes, whether his own or others’. This attitude must not discourage the European side. The EU must put on its boots and enter the geopolitical game, in the only arena that is truly its own, the championship of the great powers. Here lies both an opportunity and a historic obligation.

Putin and our side of Europe

The infinite Vladimir Putin

Victor Angelo

 

According to official figures, for what they are worth, the constitutional revision now enacted by Vladimir Putin would have received the approval of 78% of voters in July 2020. The opposition considered the referendum a sham full of pressure and manoeuvres, but the president will always stress that the revision deserved popular support. We all know how results like that are achieved in opaque and authoritarian regimes. In any case, it is estimated that nearly two thirds of Russians go along with the president, despite the economic doldrums, social dissatisfaction and obstacles to freedom. This level of acceptance - or resignation - is due to the regime's incessant propaganda of the leader, showing him to be a resolute and deeply nationalistic leader, the personifier and protector of Russian identity. The population still remembers the chaotic governance that preceded his coming to power in 1999. Putin means for many stability and public order.

Autocracy favours corrupt practices. That is one of the regime's weaknesses. The campaign against Putin's absolute power involves unmasking high-level corruption. Attacking him based on the aberrations inscribed in the new constitution will not have much impact. It is true that the new law allows him to remain president, if life gives him health, until the age of 84 in 2036. That is the most striking aspect of the new constitutional text. It is a cunning move that aims to allow him to leave the scene when he sees fit, without losing an inch of authority until the final moment. The other relevant changes are the lifetime impunity granted to him and his sidekick Dmitry Medvedev, and the ban on homosexual marriages.

Seeing the Russian people condemned to another number of years of oppression makes anyone who knows and cherishes the value of freedom angry. But the problem is fundamentally an internal issue, which will have to be resolved by the Russian political system and citizens' movements. Our space for action is limited to insistently condemning the lack of democracy and the attacks that the regime makes against the fundamental rights of every citizen, starting with Alexei Navalny. But it is essential not to be naïve about the danger Putin represents in terms of our stability and security. When we talk about dialogue and economic relations we do not do so out of fear or mere opportunism. We do it because that is the way to treat a neighbour, however difficult, in order to have peace in the neighbourhood.

One of the most immediate problems relates to Ukraine's aspiration to join NATO. This is an understandable ambition. It should be dealt with according to the membership criteria - democracy, the rule of law, peaceful conflict resolution and guarantees for the proper functioning of the national armed forces, including the protection of defence secrets. Kiev and Brussels do not need to ask Moscow for permission. Vladimir Putin and his people will not be at all happy when it comes to formal negotiations. However, they have no right to oppose a legitimate foreign policy decision by an independent state. However, it is important that everything is done without burning the midway points and with the appropriate diplomacy to prevent an acceptable process being exploited by the adversary as if it were a provocation.

Another area of immediate concern: the cohesion of the European Union. Putin has long been intent on shattering European unity. He sees the French presidential election of 2022 as a unique opportunity. Marine Le Pen has, for the first time, a high chance of winning. She is viscerally ultranationalist and against the European project. Her election would pose a very serious risk to the continuation of the EU. Putin knows this. He will do everything to intervene in the French electoral process and ruin anyone who might be an obstacle to the victory of the candidate who best serves his interests. It is essential to put a stop to this meddling and, at the same time, to bear in mind the lesson that the Russian leader reminds us daily: vital disputes between the major blocs are no longer fought only with a sword and rocket fire.

   (Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

Macron leads on defence

Today President Macron of France delivered a very long, dense speech to the top military personnel. The President shared his deep concern with the new international order, which is basically defined by rapports de force and not by international law and underlined once again the need for an autonomous European defence pillar, as well as his call for a strategic dialogue with Russia. But his main messages were about France as a global power and his country’s nuclear capabilities. He spent a bit of time explaining his approach to nuclear power, as a means of deterrence, a weapon that is there not to be used. France is the only nuclear power within the European Union, now that the British are outside.

But my deep reading of his address makes me conclude President Macron wants to take the lead in European defence matters. That could be part of his legacy. But he is very much aware that Germany is not ready to move too far in such field and that several other EU countries, particularly those in the East, think that the key dimension of our common defence passes through keeping the US fully engaged in Europe. 

In such circumstances, the French President wants to convince the Poles to adopt his views. That’s why he was in Poland at the beginning of the week. He also needs to convince the Polish leaders that European defence is a genuine concern, not just a screen to have France and Germany dominating the European military scene. There is a bit of a silent rivalry between Poland and Germany on defence matters.

Poland pays a lot of attention to its armed forces and it has become a key player in European military matters. The problem with Poland is that its leaders follow a political line that is very different from the one Macron promotes. And that does not facilitate a collaborative approach.

Vladimir, the new type of dictator

President Vladimir Putin is not a democrat. He was educated by the monstrous machinery of the Soviet Communist Party and formatted by its political secret police, the infamous KGB. Therefore, it can’t be a surprise to see, as we have seen yesterday, he is not ready to leave power. He came to the top position twenty years ago and he wants to stay at the apex of the political pyramid for life. His strategic mind tells him he shouldn’t wait up to the end of his mandate to make the changes. He has another four years or so to go as President. But he knows that the future must be prepared well in advance.

That’s what he is doing with the proposed constitutional changes.

And the lesson we, in our side of Europe must draw out of his move, is clear. Vladimir Putin is a dictator and will always relate to us as dictators do. They fear democratic regimes and will do anything to undermine them. They see us as a bad example that could cause some political contagion in Russia.  

Angela Merkel meets Vladimir Putin: good move

From a European perspective, the resolution of the Libyan civil conflict is a priority. Such crisis has several consequences that are of special importance for the EU Member States. It’s next door, it’s related to a very central migratory flow line, and it has also a serious impact on security in the larger Sahelian region.

But the conflict is far from being resolved. It is getting more complex and deeply dramatic these days. In such context, today’s travel to Moscow to meet President Putin has placed German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the centre of the European efforts. It was the right thing to do. The Europeans must talk to the Russians if they want to see the Libyan drama resolved. The Russians have been very supportive of one of the Libyan sides, the one led by the rebel General Khalifa Haftar. But they have not closed the door on the other side, the one based in Tripoli and recognised by the international community. Moreover, the Russians keep talking to other external actors that are involved in Libya’s domestic situation, to the Turks, the Egyptians and some Arab Gulf States.

Another positive move, out of today’s travel, is the reaffirmation by Angela Merkel that the Libyan peace process must be facilitated by the UN. This is the kind of support that is so much needed.  

   

The delicate EU approach towards Russia

We quite often forget that politics is about the control of power. Consequently, we also lose sight of a very fundamental question: what is, in each given situation, the key source of power?

Political leaders know they must pay special attention to this question.  And that the answer is found in the domestic arena, not in the field of international affairs. Power is based on the way domestic politics are played. The domestic voter must be persuaded. The effective political narrative takes that into account.

Vladimir Putin knows it. And we should keep it in mind when dealing with him. That is my message to President Macron, to the politicians in Italy and all those in the EU who are now advocating a new type of dialogue with President Putin.

Russia’s relations with the EU will always be a mix of tension and commerce. The Russian leaders want to keep a certain level of friction. They will picture the EU as a devilish power, a rival that wants to create chaos in Russia. They must create an external menace, the EU, as a way of justifying their strong hold on power. Therefore, they bet on old feelings about Germany – and more recently, on a new wave of negative feelings about Poland. All this helps them to fuel Russian nationalism, as well as gain voters’ support. It gives them an excuse for a strong hand against their internal opponents, presented as foreign agents, and a justification to spend an extraordinary amount of resources on the Russian Armed Forces and on the internal security structures. In exchange, the Armed Forces and the different Police organisations become key pillars of Putin’s power edifice.

But President Putin cannot ignore the economy. It must turn and generate enough resources, including those resources required to sustain a certain standard of living for the population. That means he needs to maintain open the access to the EU markets. Particularly, for Russia’s gas and oil exports, on one side, and, on the other, to import food and other goods and services from Europe. The Russian dependency on European markets, as suppliers and buyers, cannot be ignored.

The EU relationship with Russia must take such equation present. It’s a combination of power and economic factors. Interests, yes, but not about shared values, or common political objectives. As such, it would be naïve to think we can have a healthy cooperation with Russia, now and in the medium term. It will continue to be a question of balance between conflict and opportunity.

Our neighbour, Vladimir Putin

Again, on defence, it’s clear to us in the EU that one of the key military objectives of Russia is to look stronger than they really are. That’s why they spend so much human and capital resources on mixing facts and fiction. Part of their strength is indeed a fact. On the other side, a good deal of it is just a story that is being told to scare us. It is the Potemkin Village approach. It has a long history in Russia. But it produces results.

The Russian armed forces are ten years ahead of us, in the EU, in terms of cyber warfare. That’s for sure a reality. The rest, it is yes and no. But the truth is that they keep compelling us to increase our spending in military matters. In this kind of game, we cannot take risks. We better be prepared.

Fake, constructed or true, the fact of the matter is that the threats coming from Vladimir Putin must be taken seriously. And he knows that. Smart fellow, he is. And we, in many ways, look like amateurs. Just kicking the ball when it comes in  our direction.

EU's collective defence

The issue of collective defence is again a major concern for many European countries. It has to take into account a good number of major new developments. A more assertive Russia. A new level of foreign policy coordination between Russia and China, a policy that is clearly in competition with the Western interests and approaches. The fake news, the political interference and the funding of populist and far-right radical movements. The growing political gap and related tensions between Europe and Turkey. The situation in the Middle East and the Northern part of Africa. Terrorism. The US unprecedented new official policy towards defence cooperation with Europe. And the very hesitant, ambiguous views of the citizens regarding military expenditures.

And I would add one more, that is often left aside: the inept political direction provided by the EU leaders, particularly when it comes to articulating defence and security, military forces, intelligence and police services.

On Russia and the unity of the West

The Kremlin has been surprisingly slow in responding to the measures taken by Theresa May against Russia´s hostile actions. It´s difficult to come up with a good interpretation of the reasons for the delay.

But two things are clear.

First, I have no doubt they will retaliate. Heavily. And, most likely, before the Sunday presidential elections. The leadership, and Vladimir Putin above all, must show to the Russian voters that they do hesitate when it comes to defending Russia´s international honour and strength, as perceived by the official narrative.

Second, the Kremlin was clearly taken by surprise when they noted the unity shown in the West, particularly in Washington, Paris and Berlin. They wanted to respond to the UK and keep the West divided. Now, they have two big tasks. To deal with the British and look for ways of breaking the common position taken by key Western players.

Germany and NATO

Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German Foreign Minister, is an important player in European affairs. Thus, it is always wise to listen to his public statements. Tomorrow´s edition of the Bild am Sonntag newspaper will carry an interview with him. As I get to understand it, the Minister seems critical of the current approach NATO is following on Russia. He recognises the relations with Moscow are not good at all. But he thinks that escalating NATO´s military presence in Poland and the Baltic States is not the answer.

That´s an interesting position. It is obviously contrary to the current policy options within the Alliance. Moreover, Steinmeier has been aware for a good deal of time of the ongoing exercises that NATO is implementing in Poland and in the vicinity of Russia. Why did he consider necessary wait so long before stating his views? Why are those views expressed through an interview and not in the more reserved decision-making forums that are available? What should be the reading of such a position at this stage? And a few more questions, of course.

Europe´s face cannot look tired

I have supported since the early days Jean-Claude Juncker as President of the European Commission. I know he has the experience and the courage required for such a tough job. But these days he looks tired and too thin-skinned, irritable. He should pay attention to that. Leaders, particularly at challenging times, should look as being in control, calm and refreshed.

The rentrée, after the summer break, will be particularly demanding for Europe. Greece will continue at the top of the list, side by side with the immigration issues, plus matters related to internal security and instability in North Africa and Middle East. To that already heavy list, one should add the policy matters raised by the very special political options of Viktor Orban in Hungary and Cameron´s exigencies in terms of reform, and also the need to re-open the dialogue with Russia.

This is a full agenda. It calls for leadership that projects strength, confidence and optimism. And those features have to be seen on the TV screens, when people like Juncker are talking to the media or to the EU Parliament.  They are the public faces of the Union. 

Greater risk of confrontation

The seizure by Belgium and France of Russian assets, following a court order of yesterday, is a new dangerous step towards conflict escalation.

I am not saying, let me be clear, that those countries should not implement the court order, which is by the way a response to the illegal confiscation of Youkos´s corporate assets by the Moscow authorities a decade ago. What I am witnessing, with great concern, is an acceleration of the tension between Russia and the West. And experience shows that a greater level of confrontation can lead to a mishap or a miscalculation and become an open clash.

That would be a disaster. But as things keep going these days, one cannot ignore the risks. 

Putin´s ban list: forget!

The Russian government has issued a list with the names of those barred from travelling to Russia.

I have reviewed it with some detail. It is a mixed bag of second rate EU personalities, nothing more. It pulls together members of parliament, a few politicians, including local ones, another couple of opinion makers, and a handful of senior civil servants from different EU countries.

It is obviously a list to retaliate. Most of those on the list have little power to decide about the European relations with Moscow. They might be vocal, in a few cases, but I am not even sure the EU leaders listen to them.

The best approach to the Putin list is to ignore it. 

Europe: a call for dialogue

I am certainly very impressed by the Moscow parade and rally on this Victory Day, which is also Europe´s Day. But in the end, this should be a day to call for renewed dialogue and cooperation between Russia and our part of Europe. If we really want to honour all those who lost their lives during the last big war in Europe, we should pledge a new and strong commitment to peace and mutual respect. 

On Russia, we have to keep the diplomatic bridges open

On 9 May there will be a major party in Moscow. It will celebrate the 70^th anniversary of the Soviet victory against Nazism, the end of World War II, as we would say on this part of Europe. In the Russian historical narrative this is a big day. Most probably one of the top celebrations every year. It has also a lot of political meaning, as the date is sold to the people as Russian soldiers liberating Europe, after a devastating war.

This time the European leaders will not be around in Moscow. The current political and military tensions with Russia led to a decision to boycott Vladimir Putin´s invitation to attend. The decision seems to be consistent with the economic and political sanctions being imposed by our side on Russia.

But I think we should make a distinction between sanctions – which are fully justified – and diplomacy. Diplomacy should be more active than ever, now that there are serious reasons to be unhappy with Russia´s international behaviour. Diplomacy aims at repairing conflict situations. And diplomacy means contacts, being around, keeping the doors open.

In the case under discussion here, I think the best solution would have been to accept the invitation to attend the 9^th May party but to send second line political representatives. That would mean we would be around, and ready to engage, but at the same time our lower level of participation would be showing our displeasure with today´s Kremlin´s political options.

That would give no excuse to our hosts, no chance to paint us in bad colours.

Putin´s paranoia and the people´s feelings about the West

President Putin´s speech on state of the Russian nation is pure Cold War vintage. The old ghosts are back in his words and his vision of the West´s relations with his country. He sees conspiracies against Russia in every move and every fact that happens in our part of the world. It´s pitiful view of a relationship that should be based on trust and cooperation instead of suspicion and blind competition. The only possible outcome of such a policy is further underdevelopment of the Russian society, both at the institutional and economic levels. And to aggravate things further, 72% of the Russian voters think the President´s approach is right. Putin´s narrative is synchronised with the people´s feelings of a nation that is great but that has never been appreciated by the West. These feelings and the narrative are difficult to change because there is very little room in the nation for those who would like to express a different view of things.

Russia´s is moving fast to become a major disaster at the footsteps of Europe. And that is for sure a matter that is of great concern for all of us in Europe.  

Armistice Day

Armistice Day: time to say yes to peace and cooperation in Europe. Including with Russia, of course. Partnerships between nations, starting with the economic partnership, are the foundation for a sustainable and prosperous future for all. Confrontation and prejudice can only bring us back to the old demons of the past. 

11 September

This is a special day because of what happened thirteen years ago. But it is a bit worrying that the news of this day is about an escalation of the tensions between the EU and Russia. On the European side, today was decided to go ahead with the new round of sanctions against the other side. In Russia, the announcement was about military state of alertness and readiness and other conflict-related statements. This is indeed bad news. And this time the markets are getting very nervous about these developments. If you add to it the fact that the latest opinion poll in China and Japan shows that the public opinion of both countries is getting more and more antagonist, more convinced that conflict between them will erupt, then we can say we have a strange feeling about the state of peace in some parts of the world that are not far from our own yard. 

Time to be wiser

Gas supplies from Russia remain a key trump card. We should not forget it. And since yesterday, this option seems less improbable than before.

 But the signs remain very confusing. There is, in many quarters, a clear intention to de-escalate. I also see the opposite, among many influential people. People that believe it is time to go for a fight.

An agreement is better than conflict.

However, capitulation is not the same as an agreement. An agreement is based on concessions on both sides. On being able to demonstrate that conflict is too costly to both sides.

Unfortunately, we are not yet at that stage. We still believe that we can carry the argument without taking into account the other side´s interests. And vice versa. The other side is still convinced they will manage to impose their views.

It´s therefore time for the elders to come up with a wiser view of the relationship. It is time for a dialogue road map. 

Merkel and Eastern Europe: let the lady try her best

Angela Merkel is investing a lot in her country relations with Russia. Germany has a lot of interests in Russia and does not want the tensions between EU and Moscow to get worse. They are already pretty bad, that´s true. But any further deterioration would mean not only that the sanctions regime would continue to bite but also new measures. They would certainly penalise the Russians. They would also bring quite a bit of pain to the EU economies, particularly to the German one. In the circumstances, the German interests – an easing of the tensions on matters related to Ukraine – coincide with the European ones. It is therefore good news to see Merkel trying to find a solution. She has the authority, the resources, the power, and also very good access to Putin´s ears. Let´s hope there will be some progress in the very near future.