Analytics, Baltic States – CIS, EU – CIS, Modern EU, Russia
International Internet Magazine. Baltic States news & analytics
Friday, 26.04.2024, 12:07
Balancing confrontation: West-East and Russia in modern Europe
Each state and region has its “interests” proceeding from both internal and external policies; best way to mediate such interests is through fruitful cooperation. So far situation in the Baltic Sea Area (BSR) and Europe as a whole is far from being good. After 25 years since the Soviet Union’s collapse, Western politicians exert negative stance and often hatred towards Russia. On top of this, NATO troops are moving closer and closer to Russia’s borders…
According for some western experts, one of the reasons for
that is that Western politicians are too much afraid of more self-sufficient
and powerful “player” on both the global and the BSR’s area, of Russia becoming
a super-power.
Mistrust on both sides of western-Russian confrontation
could only lead to avalanche of “actions & reactions”, which might easily
evolve – God bless, no- into an open conflict, acknowledged recently annual
Danish military intelligence report (December 2016). Source: Politiken-Daily/Denmark,
Security policy.- 21.xii.2016, p. 15.
Differences in perceptions
Through hundreds of years in Western development, some
versions of liberal capitalism appeared paving the way to specific forms of
democracy. Already in 2010, a notable book appeared mentioning the fourth type
of capitalism at present: first was a world of laisser faire (from
the “Wealth of Nations” to the Great Depression); second,
recognized the interdependence of politics and economics, giving governments a
role in macro-economic management and the direction of industry; a regime of
market fundamentalism, in which inequality widened and financial sector
flourished was a key to “capitalism 3.0”. Modern capitalism 4.0 has shown that
market fundamentalism is a dangerously misleading guide to policy. See more in:
Kaletsky A. Capitalism 4.0. The birth of a new economy. -
Bloomsbury, Public Affairs Publ. 2010.
Russian short –for about 25 years -and turbulent “capitalist
history” doesn’t leave much room to western-type capitalism; and this path is
hardly “the Russian cup of tea”. Instead, Russia has developed a sort of state
capitalism with economic power concentrated in the hands of limited number of
elites and oligarchs with closer contacts to central administration. That seems
to be a specific feature in Russian path to free market/liberal economy as
socialist past doesn’t provide a lot of options for fundamental western-type
democratic outcome.
Probably, for the time being that “path” would persist to
the despair of western politicians and making ground for constant misunderstandings
and conflicts.
There is another problem as well: after the USSR’s collapse
during December days in 1991, about 25 million ethnic Russians have been “left”
in the so-called “Russian near-neighborhood”. These and other Russian-speaking
population has become the background of widely popular “Russian World”
movement. In perspective, there will be a kind of integration moves at one time
anyway…
Western leaders seem not to see the multiple political,
economic and ideological effect of the Soviet collapse; but these effects will
be felt for several decades to come.
Economic sanctions
Most “exotic” in western-Russian attitude in “mutual
relationships” have been the issue of western/EU economic sanctions imposed on
Russia in June 2014 and aimed at “punishing” financially, militarily,
economically (e.g. through energy sector), etc. spheres in Russian development.
In retaliation, Russia imposed sanctions on the EU’s agro-produce export to the
country.
These sanctions have been fixed up to the end of January
2017, but in mid-December 2016 the EU prolonged them for another six months.
Although the sanctions’ negative effect was felt in Russia
(reducing country’s GDP by about 2-3%), the damaging effect was felt by the
eastern-EU states as well. For example, Estonian export to Russia reduced by a
third, Latvian by about 11%, Lithuanian by 10%, Slovakian by about 8%, as well
as Czech, Polish and Finish export by about 7% each.
The Baltic States and Poland suffered most; however, strange
enough, they have been the most voiced supporters in prolonging sanctions. The
European Commission provided some financial support to farmers in these states
to ease the damage which partly sustained the adversary trends.
In general, the EU-28 export share has reduced by about 3%
due to sanctions. Greece and Italy suffered less but they were most
active in lifting sanctions; Greece export to Russia has even slightly
increased recently.
Behind the sanction’s effect rests a general motive: if
sanctions do not produce “political consequence” (which is apparently most
evident outcome), the whole “sanctions’ idea” might suffer with very serious
and negative consequences for the EU’s governance at present and in future.
See: http://www.baltic-course.com/rus/_analytics/?doc=125302&ins_print
According to Bloomberg, more than half questioned
politicians and businessmen acknowledged that the US would reconsider Russian
sanctions; then, most probably the EU would follow the suit. See: http://4teller.com/snimut-li-sankcii-s-rossii-v-2017-godu
The EU’s situation presently
Recent Eurostat statistics has revealed the EU’s status quo:
thus, at the European national level, the main concerns are unemployment (31%,
still nr. 2 in the total “vitality ranks”) and immigration (26%,
the second rank in importance). The economic situation in 2016 is in third
place with about 19% and unchanged compared with 2015.
Quite amazingly, that the trust in the EU institutions is
higher than the trust in national governments: the EU citizens showed that
their trust in the EU increased to 36% (up from 33%). Trust in national
parliaments and governments have also increased but remains below trust in the
EU institutions.
At the same time, 38% of Europeans have a neutral image
of the EU, a proportion that has remained unchanged since spring 2015.
It seems that the positive image of the EU has gained some ground, while the
negative image has declined to 25%.
Only four in ten Europeans consider that their
voice counts in the EU, just below the peak of 42% recorded in spring
2014 and spring 2015. At the same time, 67% of Europeans feel they
are citizens of the EU. See: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-4493_en.htm
Besides, popular movement in the EU member states is greatly
dissatisfied with the growing “distance” between elites/bureaucrats in Brussels
and decision-makers at the national level.
To resolve all controversial issues within the EU needs a
“comfortable calm” on its borders; hence a peaceful and stable relationship
with Russia is more than desirable.
Then, after all: the ultimate EU’s idea is integration and common/single market. That means, borderless Europe and less nationalism, finding what is “common” to all Europeans. Russia is as European as any other country on this continent; and she needs an adequate approach! Behind all EU-Russia controversies are just cultural and spiritual misunderstandings…
EU-Russian tense relations
Present legal
basis for EU-Russia relations is the Partnership and Cooperation
Agreement (PCA) which came into force in 1997, initially for 10
years. Since 2007 it has been renewed annually. It established a political
framework for regular consultation between the EU and Russia, based on the
principles of respect for democracy and human rights, political and economic
freedom, and commitment to international peace and security. Furthermore, the
PCA is complemented by sectorial agreements covering a wide range of policy
areas, including political dialogue, trade, science and technology, education,
energy and environment, transport, and prevention of illegal activities.
The EU issues are of extreme importance for Russia and vice
versa: i.e. in trade, energy resources, science and research, etc. The EU is Russia's main trading and
investment partner, while Russia is the EU's fourth. In 2014, EU exports to
Russia totaled €103.3 billion, while EU imports from Russia amounted to €181.3
billion. The EU trade deficit with Russia was therefore €78 billion in 2014.
The EU is by far the largest investor in Russia. The total stock of foreign direct investment in Russia originating from the EU totaled €154.8 billion as of the end of 2013. https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/720/russian-federation-and-european-union-eu_en
At a recent
grand-press meeting in Moscow (assembling about 1,5 thousand local and foreign
journalists), President Putin underlined that Russian needed a stronger partner
to deal with. However, he added if the EU’s “with one strong voice” is not
possible, Russia is ready to take bi-lateral discussions.
Brexit effect
Brexit doesn’t stimulate peace and calm within the rest of
27 left EU members; on the contrary, the UK’s exit is a sign of deep EU
problems. Suffice it to say that present EU-27 states (without the UK) are far
from being unanimous on British future relationships with the EU. The lack of
unanimity is felt even among the EU institutions: at the EU summit in
mid-December, the European Parliament (EP) Martin Schultz expressed deep
dissatisfaction on “degrading EP’s role” in EU-UK negotiation process. The EU
decided to concentrate the whole negotiation deals in the hands of an EU
chief-negotiator and former commissioner, Michel Barnier from France, which
means that the Commission is going to “run the show”. The EP is furious, as
finally it will be the Parliament to blue-stamp the deal. Only the time will
show whether the EP is being involved when the UK presents the formal papers in
March 2017.
Both, the EU and Russia are having their own internal
problems; however, instead of making their life easier and somehow help each
other in resolving stumbling blocks, “the sides” do their utmost to damage the
not so good relationships.
Media confrontation
On both sides, almost all sources of mass media are doing
their utmost to defend the status-quo. For example, Russian media praises its
military and political advances to show the internal and external public the
country’s just and fair actions in Syria and Ukraine.
Russian media defends the governments’ actions as a sign of
patriotism, solidarity and respect for Russian interests, which the western
side generally ignores.
Om another side, the European media is doing their
propaganda steps: thus, the EU Parliament (in a resolution from 23 November
2016) even “expressed a warning sign” to the EU member states concerning some
Russian forms of public diplomacy and instruments of soft
power.
The damaging confrontation effect of the west-Russia “media
war” just adds up to the negative climate in relationships.
Several experts have already questioned the leaders on both
side, whether it was the right of any sovereign state to pursue the media policy
in line with the state’s general interests? It seems that the West wants to
impose on its eastern neighbor the “pattern of truth” and values appropriate
and accepted in their own states. Such interference into the internal affairs
of a sovereign state can hardly be acceptable; besides, it doesn’t help in
creating a kind of trustworthy relations.
Conclusion
Both societies, western and eastern are evolving, so-to-say
shifting while following the seismic changes in the global and the European
developments. Very often these “shifts” are becoming quite challenging for the
stability status quo in 2017.
The global moves (at least for now) are not mainly confined
to Europe and America; all developed and highly successful societies are
searching for a new narrative to explain the public the real course of events.
Here the western- Russian issues are becoming even more important requiring
quick solution…
However, West has never made plans for peaceful coexistence
with Russia; all the time there were plans for tackling confrontation. Isn’t it
time to change the pattern and stop treating Russia as a potential (or even
real) adversary?