Russia and the United States presented Europe with a very valuable New Year gift.
A master class of political realism that the leaders of the European Union need to master - if, of course, they want to maintain their subjectivity in world politics.
On January 9, direct Russian-American talks on building a new European security system started in Geneva. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov called their first round "amazing", which means that, apparently, the American side (contrary to the categorical statements of US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken from a series of "no concessions to Moscow") is conducting discussions at least constructively. On January 10, negotiations continued, and then the United States and Russia will hold a collective meeting with NATO member countries.
And this situation is extremely displeasing to the European allies of the United States. Moreover, not only Eastern European (which, in principle, are against any negotiations with Moscow), but also Western European. Which, in the words of the EU High Representative for Foreign Policy Josep Borrell, are unhappy with the fact that the Russian Federation and the United States are discussing issues of European security without Europe. Yes, the White House assures that nothing will be signed with the Russians until consultations with the European allies, but the consultations, in fact, will only mean bringing the agreements to the "younger brothers" and the development of cosmetic amendments to save European faces.
And here a very interesting situation arises. For years, Moscow has tried to engage in dialogue with Europe on European affairs. She proposed the creation of a collective security system from Lisbon to Vladivostok, the development of rules of the game in the post-Soviet space, various trade and economic agreements, pipeline projects (South Stream). And for years the European states, as well as the European bureaucrats in Brussels, refused such negotiations. Moscow was accused of wanting to split the collective West, pulling European partners away from American ones. Washington, of course, fully supported these accusations.
As a result, some of Russia's European projects were directly sabotaged (Kozak's plan in Transnistria, South Stream 2), European leaders, with rare exceptions (SP-2), refused to discuss separate strategic projects with Moscow and demanded that they be brought up for general European discussion, and The European Commission, looking into the mouth of the United States, turned all these European discussions into a rhetorical farce. It got to the point that, according to media reports, France and Germany were not even able to organize a Russia-EU summit to overcome differences: a number of European states sabotaged this idea.
As a result, the Kremlin gave up hopes of reaching an agreement with the European Union (Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov did not even rule out severing relations with the EU as an institution) and demanded direct negotiations with the United States.
And the Americans, to the surprise of the Europeans "loyal to their allied duty", agreed to these essentially separate negotiations.
Unlike the ideologized European leaders, the pragmatic part of the Biden administration is ready to make a forced compromise with Moscow - at least in order to prevent a direct military clash (in particular, in the Ukrainian space), and also to delay the Kremlin from too close relations with China. to which Russia is driven primarily by confrontation with the West.
Outraged Europe, of course, is trying to protest.
EU High Representative for Foreign Policy Josep Borrell is outraged by the intention of Moscow (namely Moscow - he cannot criticize Washington) to conduct a dialogue on European security without Europe.
“The Russian leadership, deliberately excluding any mention of the EU from the“ draft agreements ”that they presented in December last year, seems to intend to turn back the clock, return to the old logic of the Cold War,” the European official said indignantly.
On the sidelines, Europeans complain about the injustice and even the ingratitude of the United States.
At the same time, EU leaders realize that complaints will not do the trick. That if this continues in the future, then Russia and the United States will simply deprive Europe of any subjectivity in matters of European security, which means that something needs to be done about it. In this regard, there is no particular hope for Brussels - European bureaucrats continue to defend not so much the interests of Europe as their liberal-globalist creeds. So, in the current situation, Josep Borrell calls for negotiations with Moscow, but "in close coordination with the transatlantic and other partners", as well as with "strong support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine."
It is clear that any dialogue with Russia with such European officials is doomed to failure. Therefore, having learned the lesson of political realism taught to them by Moscow and Washington, the leaders of the EU countries are taking matters into their not too calloused hands. For example, the German tabloid Bild wrote that the new German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, is trying to organize a personal summit with Vladimir Putin in January. And not to talk about life, but to carry out a "competent reset" of Russian-German relations. Roughly the same signals are now coming from Paris - Emmanuel Macron is also not against trying on the mantle of a European leader who will begin the process of reconciliation between Europe and Russia. Finally, it is possible that Italy will also compete for this status: the local Prime Minister Mario Draghi has already made a number of pro-Russian statements (for example,about the senselessness of imposing sanctions against Moscow for the rise in gas prices in Europe).
Apparently, Russia is not against dialogue with European countries - Moscow has repeatedly called for solving all problems through negotiations. However, one should not pin great hopes on these negotiations. First, European leaders lack the political will to make big decisions. Secondly, there is no unity in their elites - for example, German Foreign Minister Annalena Berbock actually opposes the Russian-related initiatives of Chancellor Scholz (and experts say that because of the Russian issue, the ruling "traffic light coalition" in Berlin is under threat of collapse) ... Finally, thirdly, the leaders of Germany and France are afraid to destroy the specter of European unity and are unlikely to risk going against the phobias of the Eastern European countries.
That is why Europe needs not only to learn the lesson of political realism, but also to work hard to correct mistakes.
In the meantime, Europe is doing it (more precisely, going with the spirit to do it), Russia will continue to resolve issues of European security with the United States.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.