Shortly before the summertime vacations season, the activity of the Western diplomacy on the Russian direction is extremely high. Visits of high-ranking and not so high-ranking US and European delegations, meetings, conferences, and receptions organized mostly by Western foundations operating in Russia and their Russian affiliates are taking place incessantly. The range of issues discussed is extremely broad – from the EU politics in Central Asia to the “return to totalitarianism” in Russia. At the highest point of this activity, G. Bush invited the Russian president to visit his family compound in Kennebunkport on July 1-2 (in less than a month after the G-8 meeting in Germany).
Naturally there has to be a reason for the high activity. The escalation of the pressure on Russia over the whole spectrum of political issues is obvious, and it is easy to explain – during the recent months, Russia has had a major success both in the energy politics (an agreement on the Caspian pipeline was reached by Russia, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan) and in the military sphere (missiles capable to overpower the missile shield the US is deploying in Europe were test-launched). It also plays a role that the stand-off between Russia and the West caused by the disagreement over the future of Kosovo continues (Moscow has once again rejected the Ahtisaari plan), and a number of minor problems like the import of the beef from Poland persist...
So far nothing seems to indicate that the West is going to abandon its unilateralist policy of exclusively advancing the viewpoint of the US (the potential of the EU to implement an independent politics appears at least very limited). Therefore, one can expect that attempts - disguised as a search for compromise - will continue to get Moscow involved in resoling problems in the only vein – entirely on the Western conditions and under the Western control. The aforementioned meetings of politicians and experts, convening in anticipation of the coming summit, can be considered a confirmation of the above. Speaking privately, the participants of the meetings describe them as dialogs of the deaf and the blind.
The speech of Andreas Schockenhoff, Deputy Chairman of the CDU/CSU Group of the German Parliament, at the conference on the perspectives of the cooperation between Russia and the EU in the European security and defense matters (Moscow, May 30) is a vivid example. The statements by A. Schockenhoff are made even more significant by the fact that he is the Coordinator of German-Russian Intersocietal Cooperation. After the routine mentioning of the “strategic partnership” and “shared values” the speaker moved on to specific recommendations. He opined that pressure must continue to be exerted on Iran jointly with Moscow, and suggested that, as a part of the process, Moscow should stop any export to Iran of not only missile technologies, but also … of the air defense systems. The “suggestion” is absurd in general, as the sales of sensitive dual-purpose technologies are regulated very strictly both by the Russian and the international laws, and the sales of defensive antiaircraft systems are not restricted by any international agreements. Nevertheless, A. Schockenhoff finds it possible to discuss what Moscow should or should not do.
Speaking on the Kosovo issue, the German representative said in a no less imperative manner that the problem must be resolved on the basis of the Ahtisaari plan and that this option is adequate to Russia’s interests. Comments seem unnecessary in the case. Further, A. Schockenhoff reproached Moscow for a lack of activity in combating terrorism in the Black Sea region (!). This is said at the time when the West is literally turning Kosovo into a criminal and terrorist enclave. Of course, the US military bases, which are in the process of urgent deployment in the Black Sea region (in Bulgaria and Romania), are not meant to counter terrorism – their purpose is something completely different…
Besides, Russia is invited to cooperate with the EU in Congo, Sudan, and Lebanon. As for the post-Soviet space, according to A. Schockenhoff, the EU will take part in the settlement of the frozen conflicts regardless of whether there will be any cooperation or not. The question is whether there is any point in the European’s getting involved in the post-Soviet space if they have no idea how to deal with numerous ethno-political problems at their home …
No conference of this sort has ever avoided discussing the deployment of elements of the US missile shield in Europe. Not surprisingly, A. Schockenhoff’s talk included the allegation that Moscow is fully aware that the 10 antimissiles to be deployed in East Europe are neither intended to be a threat to Russia nor capable to neutralize its strategic nuclear potential. A. Schockenhoff chose not to mention that the antimissiles are a part of the global system with installations along the Russian border and that elements of the system are also planned to be deployed in space – either he believes that Russian experts are total idiots or hopes that the statements of the kind will finally become credible if reiterated endlessly. Currently, the deployment of the US missile defense in Europe is also justified by … the increasing kamikaze terrorist activity (obviously, they must be planning to start buying intercontinental ballistic missiles). In reality, what we encounter here is the logic of the endless and self-reproducing arms race, and if one follows it thoroughly, eventually the conclusion has to be that the only threat to the EU is presented by the spread of the weapons of mass destruction from the Russian territory (references to Iran and N. Korea cannot be taken seriously). Somehow, all of this does not seem to preclude talking about “common interests”…
The impression is that not only the “new” but now also the “old” Europeans accept the presence of the US antimissiles and other military infrastructures on their territory. Well, this is their deliberate choice. Under the circumstances, there is no reason to feel surprised that, according to the public opinion polls conducted in Russia shortly after the Russia-EU summit in Samara, 65% of the respondents regard the EU as a potential adversary. As for the US and NATO, the result would be even more predictable…
Europeans keep telling that Russia depends on them a lot more than they depend on it. True enough, so far this has been the case – the EU imports 44% of the gas it consumes from Russia, whereas Russia pipes 67% of the gas it produces to the EU. Gradually, we must make the situation change. It is sure to change due to the increase in the domestic consumption of gas in Russia and the rapid development of the energy markets in South, East, and South-East Asia. Besides, while promoting our energy cooperation with Germany we should not forget that it was and remains the major military and political ally of the US in Europe.
Though Moscow is becoming increasingly independent in its international politics, there are no real reasons to charge Moscow with being uncompromising. On the contrary, oftentimes we see too many concessions being made. Sometimes the tradeoffs that we agree to are quite dubious. Examples? Here they are.
Russia delegated its rights to negotiate with Iran to Xavier Solana who represents the three European nations (France, Germany, Great Britain) at the talks with Ali Larijani. The usefulness of this arrangement is extremely dubious as the difference between the positions of Solana and the US on the “Iran issue” happens to be microscopic.
Russia’s technical assistance in the NATO operation in Afghanistan continues despite the fact that the production of heroin in the country has increased by a factor of dozens since the US gained ground in the region. It is clear that Russia’s proposals concerning the normalization of the situation in Afghanistan have ended up in the garbage bin. The German representative said that the EU plans to carry out a major police mission in Afghanistan, but the available experience (importantly, of the military presence in the country, not of police missions) instills no optimism. While the NATO transit to Afghanistan via the Russian territory continues, Moscow can only hope to see any progress in the resolution of the problem of its transit (including the military one) to the Kaliningrad oblast…
Examples of the kind are plentiful. So far, Moscow never got a mutually rewarding dialog with Washington or Brussels no matter how hard it tried. It seems that it will never have one – in case, like the 1990ies, the West will continue to reject the idea of an equal partnership and to teach the Russian leaders condescendingly how Russia’s interests should be understood.
