On the eve of the European Union summit, which is scheduled for March, local politicians are trying to determine their position on our country.
So far, it's not working very well.
“We are not scared by Russia,” said the head of the European Council Charles Michel and expressed hope for help from the United States and Great Britain.
And German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas proposed not to completely destroy the bridges of cooperation, since the isolation of Russia would lead to the creation of the largest military-economic union between Moscow and Beijing.
It looks like they're scared after all.
We're not scary though.
We are talking about the long-term strategic line of the Europeans.
The head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell, who has just visited Moscow, defined the moment as a "historical crossroads."
The choice to be made soon by the EU will determine the model of relations with Russia for the entire coming century, the politician said.
It can be more cooperative or more polarized.
Will Russia and the Old World just tolerate each other, or will they find reasons for cooperation?
While Borrel makes a formidable face.
At the February 22 meeting of EU foreign ministers, which precedes the summit, he is about to "turn on the sanctions."
“I will make concrete proposals, using my right of initiative as high representative for foreign and security policy,” he promised.
It seems like a passionate desire to demonstrate who is in charge.
Turn it on, turn it on, calm down, I want to tell him.
But for what reason?
"Russia did not live up to expectations, and did not become a modern democracy," - explained the head of the EU Foreign Ministry.
The politician's critical tone surprised our diplomacy.
“Borrell's speech in the European Parliament is openly discordant with his statements during his visit to Russia and is fully consistent with the place and the general Russophobic mood of the audience.
Apparently, by his statements, the head of European diplomacy tried to justify himself before those MEPs who called for the dismissal of Josep Borrel after his trip to Moscow, ”commented Leonid Slutsky, head of the State Duma's international affairs committee.
Russophobia?
Yes.
In turn, Maria Zakharova noted that in Moscow Borrell characterized negotiations with Lavrov “in a positive way”, mentioning not only disagreements, but also opportunities for cooperation.
“Nobody forced him to make these assessments.
He himself went out and said everything ... And then he arrived in Brussels - and something went wrong, ”complained the official representative of the Foreign Ministry.
Moment controversial.
How did you not incline it?
And Lavrov?
Obviously, the perspective unfolded by him in front of the European was so impressive that he could not resist.
And I drifted at home.
The Kremlin's statements are quite similar to an appeal to a difficult patient.
“We have repeatedly said that we deeply regret this and that we are looking for ways to normalize our relations ... Despite the excessive problematic potential, there should still be room for dialogue in our relations,” Dmitry Peskov said.
At the same time, he did not miss the opportunity to reproach the Europeans for being passive on the Ukrainian issue: they say, they did not keep their promises, and now they are complaining.
The boundless patience of our officials is sometimes amazing.
Moscow has clearly set the key points: striving for dialogue and cooperation, we will never agree to this, infringing on our own interests.
According to Lavrov, any attempts by Russia to become independent, to defend its right to an independent foreign policy, encounter fierce resistance from the West, which wants to make Russia "obedient", "a convenient territory for promoting their own interests in the security and economic spheres, and in the field of social and political ".
Finally it was said out loud.
Borrell, of course, is not to be envied.
Upon his return from Russia, he was actually subjected to obstruction in the European Parliament.
Among the complaints is a remark by Sergei Lavrov, who during his visit called the EU an "unreliable partner", and Borrell really did not find what to say.
The accusation looks strange, since this is not the first time the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry has given such a description: exactly the same words were uttered back in September 2019.
And deservedly so.
Apparently, the era of short memory has also touched the MEPs.
However, when there is an interest in kicking a colleague, the memory of politicians is selective.
MEPs considered the expulsion from Russia of diplomats of the three countries, which Borrell learned about during an official dinner, considered a particular insult.
Really slap in the face.
Our diplomacy skillfully showed its teeth.
But the reason is that it was impossible otherwise.
Direct intrusion into the internal political situation in Russia is unacceptable.
And it is precisely this way and no other way to perceive the visits of European diplomats to street actions in Moscow, and most importantly - to the courts.
Thank God, Borrel was smart enough not to try to meet with Navalny, although he announced this in advance.
All these claims became the reason for the MEPs to demand Borrell's resignation.
True, the group of supporters of such a drastic measure is insignificant in number.
Rather noisy and full of enthusiasm, like all neophytes, since it represents mainly Eastern European countries, striving in their Russophobia to be holier than the Pope.
All these Poland, Estonia ... However, in Brussels, although they listen to recommendations on how best to punish these allegedly insidious Russians, they do not really listen to them.
There is no doubt that Borrell will fight back and sit in his chair.
As for the "historical crossroads" in relations between Europe and Russia, it is precisely him - the EU Foreign Minister - who must make the right decision, not make a mistake.
And make it so that it becomes common.
Russia will live without Europe, as has happened more than once in history, but Europe is unlikely without us.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.