Partnership 'against' Russia

The latest EU-Russia summit, which took place last week in the Russian Far East, made clear that the two sides have yet another topic that they fail to see eye-to-eye on. Along with energy and trade policy, Georgia and human rights - to name just a few - one can now add the Eastern Partnership.

Launched on 7 May, the EU’s Eastern Partnership seeks an upgrade in ties with Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova and the three republics of the South Caucasus (Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan). Broadly speaking, the aim of the initiative is to bring into the fold countries decades away from EU accession by exchanging increased aid and closer relations for democratic and economic reforms.

Russia, however, continues to see the partnership as a threat. At the summit, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said that he remained unconvinced about the harmlessness of the initiative.

"But, frankly speaking, what embarrasses me is the fact that some states view this partnership as a partnership against Russia," Medvedev said, according to RFE/RL.

"I don't mean, of course, the EU leadership and our partners that sit at this table. I am talking about other states, but we don't want the Eastern Partnership to turn into a partnership against Russia."

It didn’t even help to have Czech President Vaclav Klaus sitting at the head of the negotiating table because of the current Czech presidency of the EU. Klaus is notoriously pro-Russian. In the lead-up to the summit he made an amazingly undiplomatic remark to Czech daily Lidove noviny:

"I don't see Russia as a threat but as a big, strong and ambitious country to which we must certainly pay more attention than to the likes of Estonia and Lithuania." (The Baltic countries were none too pleased over that statement.)

Part of the problem is that the Kremlin doesn’t understand the EU ‘project’ itself and how successful that Union has been in using possible membership, even if years away, to spur reforms in, first, Central Europe, and today, in the Western Balkans.

Especially for those living on the EU’s eastern flank, it certainly does make sense to nurture democracy and market economics in the near abroad, and the EU has a tried and true approach for at least encouraging countries to head in that direction. No one wants weak, failed states as neighbors.

However, despite the paranoia about any initiative that even remotely appears to encroach on Moscow’s traditional sphere of influence, the Russians do have a point about the Eastern Partnership.

It is highly likely that the supporters of the Eastern Partnership within the EU - and that includes some of Russia’s fiercest critics among the new member states - are not entirely altruistic. Surely, they see the opportunity to expand into Russia’s traditional backyard as part of the equation, even if no one in Brussels would openly admit that. And it would be easy to see why Russia is worried, since the package that Brussels can offer must be more appealing, at least to the younger generation, than an embrace reminiscent of the Soviet Union.

Perhaps, then, Brussels should spend less time disingenuously pleading its innocence and more time standing up for the sovereignty of the target countries to decide their own fate. That also includes finding the money to fashion their independence and prove (if quietly) that Russia is right to fear the possible influence of the Eastern Partnership.