In Strasbourg the EU Parliament called on a review of bilateral ties, while in Brussels there was who preferred share other ideas. Completely different
by Emanuele Bonini
Russia is no longer a strategic partner of the EU. Or maybe it is. That's the dilemma that is dividing Europe, as usual happens in case of hot dossier. It could be said that without division a dossier wouldn't be hot, and this true. But apparently the leopard can not change its spots, thus once again the EU is acting under the "business as usual scenario", that one of different voices. Basically what happened basically was the vote of the European Parliament on Russia, immediately disavowed by the member States. We talk about Italy, to be precise. In Strasbourg MEPs passed a resolution (494 votes to 135, with 69 abstentions) condemning Russia for «deliberate violation of democratic principles, fundamental values and international law with its violent action and destabilisation of its neighbours». Any reference to Ukraine is not entirely fictional, in fact MEP Gabrielius Landsbergis (EPP), rapporteur of the resolution, had no problem to say «with its aggression against Ukraine and annexation of Crimea, the Russian leadership has put our relations at a crossroads». Somebody could define all this "state of play", somebody else "diplomacy". Anyway, with its vote the European Parliament called the EU «critically re-assess its relations with Russia», which means the EU «must devise a soft-power contingency plan to counter Russia’s aggressive and divisive policies». Meanwhile in Brussels the Italian minister for Foreign affairs, Paolo Gentiloni, clearly stated that in Italy opinion «there is the need to look at the future», which means «a framework of ties with Russia has to be re-established because the country is strategic for Europe».
Is this pragmatism or just politics? Despite the Italian economic interests (Eni, currently Italy's largest multinational oil and gas company, is in business with Gazprom) and the evident division in Europe, what is happening in the EU has to be used to reflect. Can Russia be considered out of any role in the international scenario? Are we sure we can say Russia is no longer a strategic partner when the same country has a permanent seat in the UN security council? Even assuming that Russia is not any longer a strategic partner of the EU, will the EU remain a strategic customer of Gazprom? An easy question, nothing to say about. Of course the situation is one of the most complicated ever, as tradition requires. Call it USSR or Russia, but the difference will be very little. The country always is a problem for the rest of the world. Rather than assuming Russia can no longer a strategic partner of the EU, it would be better saying what the reality is: Russia is world power and it is impossible to exclude it or ignore it. The point thus is what to do. Good question. The European Parliament called on the Commission to «earmark adequate funding without delay for concrete projects to counter Russian propaganda». A strategy well known in Europe, since was one the main pillar of the counter-soviet strategy during the cold war. It is nice to see how already at that time Italy tried to make business with Moscow. Eni founder Enrico Mattei was one of the first men from the western block who thought going in search of Russian energy sources. Apparently the leopard couldn't change its spots.
Russia is no longer a strategic partner of the EU. Or maybe it is. That's the dilemma that is dividing Europe, as usual happens in case of hot dossier. It could be said that without division a dossier wouldn't be hot, and this true. But apparently the leopard can not change its spots, thus once again the EU is acting under the "business as usual scenario", that one of different voices. Basically what happened basically was the vote of the European Parliament on Russia, immediately disavowed by the member States. We talk about Italy, to be precise. In Strasbourg MEPs passed a resolution (494 votes to 135, with 69 abstentions) condemning Russia for «deliberate violation of democratic principles, fundamental values and international law with its violent action and destabilisation of its neighbours». Any reference to Ukraine is not entirely fictional, in fact MEP Gabrielius Landsbergis (EPP), rapporteur of the resolution, had no problem to say «with its aggression against Ukraine and annexation of Crimea, the Russian leadership has put our relations at a crossroads». Somebody could define all this "state of play", somebody else "diplomacy". Anyway, with its vote the European Parliament called the EU «critically re-assess its relations with Russia», which means the EU «must devise a soft-power contingency plan to counter Russia’s aggressive and divisive policies». Meanwhile in Brussels the Italian minister for Foreign affairs, Paolo Gentiloni, clearly stated that in Italy opinion «there is the need to look at the future», which means «a framework of ties with Russia has to be re-established because the country is strategic for Europe».
Is this pragmatism or just politics? Despite the Italian economic interests (Eni, currently Italy's largest multinational oil and gas company, is in business with Gazprom) and the evident division in Europe, what is happening in the EU has to be used to reflect. Can Russia be considered out of any role in the international scenario? Are we sure we can say Russia is no longer a strategic partner when the same country has a permanent seat in the UN security council? Even assuming that Russia is not any longer a strategic partner of the EU, will the EU remain a strategic customer of Gazprom? An easy question, nothing to say about. Of course the situation is one of the most complicated ever, as tradition requires. Call it USSR or Russia, but the difference will be very little. The country always is a problem for the rest of the world. Rather than assuming Russia can no longer a strategic partner of the EU, it would be better saying what the reality is: Russia is world power and it is impossible to exclude it or ignore it. The point thus is what to do. Good question. The European Parliament called on the Commission to «earmark adequate funding without delay for concrete projects to counter Russian propaganda». A strategy well known in Europe, since was one the main pillar of the counter-soviet strategy during the cold war. It is nice to see how already at that time Italy tried to make business with Moscow. Eni founder Enrico Mattei was one of the first men from the western block who thought going in search of Russian energy sources. Apparently the leopard couldn't change its spots.
No comments:
Post a Comment