The COVID-19 pandemic, the political crisis in Belarus, and the Navalny incident have made 2020 the most complicated year in EU-Russia relations since 2014. The EU-Russia Expert Network on Foreign Policy (EUREN) spent time this year reflecting upon "Alternative futures of EU-Russia relations in 2030". We also encouraged our members to share their views on present developments. This EUREN Brief is part of a series about the question "EU-Russia relations – what now?". See also the contributions by Timofey Bordachev, David Cadier, Sabine Fischer, Tatiana Romanova, Ivan Timofeev, Sergey Utkin, Ernest Wyciszkiewicz.

t the beginning of 2020 it looked as if EU-Russia relations could not become any worse. Unfortunately that was not the case. The Covid-19 pandemic failed to bring the two any closer despite the pressing case for solidarity and exchange of information. Instead, the constitutional changes in Russia and the Navalny case deepened negative perceptions in the EU. The situation worsened further with the events in Belarus, which caused many to remember 2014. Incidents, events and actions that divide Russia and the EU just keep coming. Nearly each day something makes the gulf deeper. If there is anything positive going on, it is buried under disagreements and fundamentally different interpretations of the past and current situation. New issues arise, while old ones remain unresolved. The upshot is zero-sum games at the bilateral, regional and international levels. So it is legitimate to ask if anything can be done?

Hanna Smith
European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats (Hybrid CoE)

Download PDF

December 2020

The Covid-19 pandemic failed to bring the two any closer despite the pressing case for solidarity and exchange of information

It is hard to believe how different the situation was just ten years ago. Does anyone remember "Russia-EU summits"? Twice a year, the Russian president and relevant ministers met with the leaders of the European Commission and Council and the Union's High Representative for Foreign Affairs to discuss ongoing cooperation and goals for the EU-Russia partnership. After the December 2010 summit in Brussels, then European Council President Herman Van Rompuy declared: "We have had a good summit with open and fruitful discussions, we will continue our discussions at dinner, building upon the friendly and constructive atmosphere that came out of the summit in Rostov in the first semester of this year". His Russian counterpart President Dmitry Medvedev agreed, describing the summit as "completely open, trusting and friendly". Note that both sides used the word "friendly" to characterise their encounter. Who would use the word "friendly" to describe Russia-EU relationship today? [1]

While always a little risky, historical analogies can enlighten and supply context. In 1863 Nikolai Chernyshevsky published a novel entitled "What Is to Be Done", at a time when Russian society was still coming to terms with defeat in the Crimean War (1853–1856), its relationship with other European countries was strained, the elites were divided between conservatives and liberals, and social polarisation and discontent were rife. The book received mixed reviews when it came out. It is said to have inspired Vladimir Lenin's work of the same name. The book and its title embody the idea that even when a situation appears very difficult and dark, there is always something that can be done. In the current almost deadlocked situation, the following four suggestions might point towards a more hopeful future.

1. What worked in the past?

We should retrace our steps and look for aspects that functioned well before 2014. The strategic level of high politics has not always done justice to the mid-level and grassroots level interaction and cooperation. In fact, poor high-level relations often cast a shadow on the working level too, but before 2014 lower-level cooperation was remarkably resilient. After the August 2008 war in Georgia, for example, business as usual was largely restored within months. Those operating at lower levels knew that high-level interaction will have its rough patches, but there was a belief that cooperation will continue, that calm will always follow the storm.

It is hard to believe how different the situation was just ten years ago. Does anyone remember "Russia-EU summits"?

This has changed to some extent since 2014, even if interaction continues. Trade and the economy are the areas most often mentioned in connection with mutual interests. But we often forget the very significant cooperation on terrorism and narcotics. In the sphere of science and technology there are still active working groups on a wide range of topics: aeronautics; energy (nuclear and non-nuclear); environment; food, agriculture and biotechnologies; health; information and communication technology; infrastructures; nanotechnologies and new materials; e-infrastructures; researchers' mobility; and space. So there is in fact ongoing cooperation in many different areas. Today, mid-level and grassroots interaction also come under pressure. Yet perhaps there is still some hope here, some possibilities that are not completely blocked by the frozen high-level situation.

2. "Common Neighbourhood"

Prior to 2014 it was clear that the trend in the post-Soviet space was towards conflict between Russia and the EU. For a long time, Moscow had been unhappy about the EU's Eastern Partnership policy, which it saw as an attempt to push Russia out of its immediate neighbourhood. It also wanted the EU to recognise the Eurasian Economic Union and the CSTO. The Kremlin frequently complained the EU was not willing to treat Russia as an equal or to work together towards a European security architecture. On the EU side there was little understanding of Russia's frustration over the Eastern Partnership. The EU never regarded the Eurasian Economic Union as a legitimate counterpart. President Dmitry Medvedev's initiative for a new European security order also fell on deaf ears in Brussels and the EU member states.

Today it is worth considering whether perhaps neither Russia nor the EU know what the other wants from the relationship. To find out, both would need to openly declare what they want and expect from the other

Today the security situation in the post-Soviet space is very poor, with persistent unresolved conflicts waiting to flare up. One way forward could be a pan-European conference to openly review the concerns of the countries involved – over economic policies, border issues, security solutions, questions of sovereignty, historical grievances and so on. The trauma of the collapse of the Soviet Union has perhaps been overlooked for too long, both in Moscow and in Brussels. Now could be the time to go back and determine where agreements have been broken and why, which arrangements are toothless and why, what has worked and what has not. The solution to the conflict over Ukraine is key to turning a new page in Russia-EU relations. But can that solution be found without a more comprehensive regional approach? The required process could be initiated within the OSCE framework. One cannot expect quick fixes – but without a process there will never be a solution.

3. Looking in the mirror

Russia and the EU will be deadlocked until they change the basic parameters of their reciprocal conceptions and interactions. One of the scenarios in the recently published EUREN report "Alternative futures of EU-Russia relations in 2030" foresees a "community of values". [3] As the scenario outlines, this would demand major transformations on both sides: The EU needs to become a stronger and more integrated player, and a more attractive and trusted partner for Russia. The scenario foresees Russia experiencing internal crisis and transformation that fundamentally alter its internal and foreign policy and bring about a more constructive stance vis-à-vis its immediate neighbours and the EU. While internal changes are in progress, there is also a need for "soul searching" on both sides about what each expects from the other. What is the EU's vision for its relationship with Russia? What would be the ideal? This vision of an ideal relationship with Russia could be the guideline for the EU's policy and would make the EU's perspective more transparent for Russia, too. Russia could also – yet again – re-evaluate its position towards the EU. This should be openly declared: conflict, cooperation, integration, something new, etc. During the Cold War it was actually helpful that both sides knew what the essence of the conflict was, and where the battlegrounds lay. Today it is worth considering whether perhaps neither Russia nor the EU know what the other wants from the relationship. To find out, both would need to openly declare what they want and expect from the other.

4. Looking beyond the horizon

The Russia-EU relationship appears grim, with no obvious way forward. The fact remains that Russia and the EU will continue to share a continent. The cost of conflict is high for both, while they would benefit tremendously from constructive cooperation. There have always been many issues Russia and the EU can work on together. Perhaps both sides should take a step back and ask themselves if they want to live in eternal conflict or work together for a better future. Looking beyond the horizon means looking to the upcoming generation, its hopes and wishes for a better future. If we imagine Europe in forty or fifty years time, what do we want to see?

Both sides should take a step back and ask themselves if they want to live in eternal conflict or work together for a better future

The "era of summits" may be history now, to which there is no returning. But it offers a good reminder that Russia and the EU have in the past worked together constructively. The "common neighbourhood" will continue to sour the relationship unless the traumas of the dissolution of the Soviet Union are revisited and openly discussed. This is of paramount importance for European security as a whole, affecting not only the post-Soviet space but the entire European continent. Clarifying one's own hopes, wishes and expectations is always a good way forward, even if it is difficult to communicate them openly to the other. Finally, we should remember that there is always a tomorrow and that the emerging generation has to pay for their parents' mistakes. The future will only be better if we make it so.

The content of this paper is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of individual EUREN members or EUREN as a group.

[1] Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the European Union, Press statements following Russia-EU Summit, (December 2010).

[2] European Commission: Russia, Policy background.

[3] Sabine Fischer, Ivan Timofeev, Alternative futures of EU-Russia relations in 2030, EUREN Report 2, (November 2020).