The decision of the European Parliament, at first glance, looks like another idiocy in the chain of non-legal and politically insignificant decisions, which the pan-European structures are famous for.

This is partly true, given the substantial randomness of the document as such.

Kadyrov’s men, the “Wagner group”, attacks on the infrastructure of the Kyiv regime used for military purposes, Russian diamonds and a long-unmasked provocation with the alleged shelling of the railway station in Kramatorsk by Russian troops are thrown into it, like in a bag.

The legal nullity of the resolution is also obvious: it does not contain, not only legally, but politically clear formulations of what a terrorist state is and what consequences for political and economic relations arise in connection with this status.

It would be possible to attribute the incident that happened in the European Parliament to purely propaganda episodes, if not for three circumstances.



Resolutions of the European Parliament, of course, are advisory in nature.

However, as has happened more than once, they play the role of both Overton's political window, demonstrating the limits of what is acceptable for European politics, and an indicator of a certain framework for further replication at the national level.

This is exactly what happened with the infamous resolution of the European Parliament “On the importance of preserving historical memory for the future of Europe” of September 19, 2019.

In it, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany acted as forces almost equally responsible for unleashing the Second World War.

Then it was considered purely propaganda, but in fact it turned out to be the starting point for the start of an unprecedented campaign to incite Russophobia in Europe, the peak of which we have not yet passed.

So in this case: voting for an outwardly propagandistic and legally insignificant document can open the door to very serious practical negative processes in relation to Russian citizens and institutions in Europe and beyond.



The demarche of the European Parliament came at a time of an unprecedented decline in the authority and influence of the national governments of European countries (which, by the way, was recorded at the G20 summit).

They can no longer ignore the position of the European Parliament to the same extent as even three or four years ago.

The resolution politically opens the door to the start of the process of developing pan-European - that is, implemented not at the national, but at the supranational level - legislation in a number of areas covered by it.

For example, in relation to Russian assets and property, the fate of which may well begin to be decided by the supranational bodies of the EU.

As for the absence of a pan-European legal basis for the implementation of the practical decisions arising from the resolution, the European bureaucracy has proved its ability to work quickly in the presence of a political need.

And there is no doubt that in the presence of political signals from large European countries (primarily Germany, France, Spain), not to mention the Little Entente, the definition of a terrorist state, the procedure for assigning such a status, and the regulations for further actions will quickly appear, Moreover, such a system already exists in the United States.



The adoption of the resolution happened against the backdrop of repeated statements at various levels by the United States that Washington does not yet intend to recognize Russia as a terrorist state.

The reasons for this are clear.

Washington is aware of the consequences of such a decision and, taking into account a number of circumstances, including domestic political ones, would not like to force the aggravation of relations with Moscow.

This means that the MEPs, obviously with the support of pan-European structures (otherwise where such a stable majority for?), demonstrate their readiness to further aggravate relations with Russia, even if the United States tries to gradually crawl out of the conflict over Ukraine.

The Europeans are beginning to guess that they may be left without the direct support of Washington, and they are doing everything to insure themselves in this case - and by tying each other with some kind of mutual guarantee,

As they can, they demonstrate.

So it would be dangerous frivolity to treat the resolution of the European Parliament as a purely propaganda document.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors