European question: What should we do with Russia?

The parliamentary elections in Russia have ended, the passions around their results settled, and no orange revolution took place. The effectiveness of the opposition demonstrations was neutralized by the government, which didn’t forbid them and avoid direct confrontation in the society. Europe, which closely followed the process in its main energy exporter and economic-political partner, begins to make conclusions and analyze new Russian reality.

In this situation an article by the German expert of DGAP, Doctor Stefan Meister is interesting. He analyzes prospects of cooperation between Russian and the EU in the context of the parliamentary elections’ results and reasons of new tendencies in the Russian society. DGAP is a structure within the German foreign ministry, which functions as a think tank.

One of key thesis by Meister is that “after the parliamentary elections the Russian government would try to reduce disagree tendencies within the country by confronting foreign political course. Conflicts with the EU would be based on common neighbors’ problems; conflicts with the US – on the European missile defense system.”

The expert thinks that “the main achievement of Dmitry Medvedev’s presidentship is appearance of a counterbalance to the current political establishment in the society. Medvedev encouraged public discourse and reduced pressure on the mass media. This policy was a part of Medvedev’s campaign on modernization and had to compensate subtraction between the elite and the society. However, this indulgence had its own dynamic, which the Russian authorities couldn’t control. Public discourses are taking place in the opposition mass media and Internet. They say about corruption and the governmental system is criticized openly.” However, the main impulse was the planned reshuffle between Premier and President during the presidential elections next year.

The political scientist explains his concerns about unavoidable harshening of the foreign political course of Russia: “The Russian administration will try to balance population trust lack by the tough policy against West. Russian foreign policy has always been used for compensation of democracy deficit and absence of population participation (in real governing of the country – editor’s note). Stating about establishing of the Eurasian Union by 2015, Vladimir Putin opened a central field for conflicts with the European Union. Priority of his third presidential term will be improvement of political and economic integration of the former Soviet space. It is a direct defiance to Eastern Partnership and the planned treaty on free trade between Ukraine and the EU. Putin believes that he can use the current weakening of the EU for closer tightening neighbors to Russia. Thus, population will be imposed an idea of foreign force and attractiveness of Russia, which will draw off people’s attention from internal problems.

Another conflict theme is the American missile defense shield in Europe, which is being constructed without cooperation with Russia. During Medvedev’s visit to the radio location station in Kaliningrad station in November 2011 he said: “Opening of the station is a response to establishing of the European missile defense system, and further counter-measures will be taken by the Russian side.” Medvedev tried to improve his “liberal” image by tough words. On the other hand, it is evidence that Kaliningrad region is considered by the Russian authorities not as a test case for cooperation with the EU, but as an instrument for threats during internal political crisis. It is an effort to return Russian population’s trust by tough words. No foreign political strategy hides behind them,” Meister concludes.

However, the ever harsher foreign political course of Russia and initiative of the Eurasian Union Meister doesn’t see direct threat to the EU influence on the former Soviet space: “Even though the EU undergoes financing crisis and trust crisis, it doesn’t mean the authority of Russia is growing in the former Soviet space. Failure of governmental modernization under Medvedev’s management is an obstacle for future foreign political relevance of Russia. If the Kremlin is not interested in anti-corruption measures, a law-governed state, fight against demographic crisis, modernization of infrastructure, education system and science, it will have no resources for being a relevant factor in the international policy. At the same time, confronting foreign political course of the Russian government will puzzle Russia’s participation in settlement of international crisis situations, for example, in Iran and Syria.”

At the end of his article Meister recommends European states to consider the fact that the Russian authorities are not able to modernize and democratize. They should concentrate their attention at direct dialogue with civil society and population of Russia.

Unfortunately, the author doesn’t comment on main directions of this dialogue. One thing is obvious: Europe is sensitive to even slight changes in Russian society’s mood. In the nearest future the EU will improve work with alternative political forces within Russia. Probably instruments of European influence will be used in the presidential elections 2012. We think that the reason for tough foreign policy is not only growing polarization within Russian society. Some foreign countries try to promote their interests through alternative mechanisms, which include “direct dialogue with civil society and population.”

At the same time, it is obvious that the direct dialogue with civil society will cause concern of the Kremlin, especially if the EU contacts with “alternative political forces” will be more intensive than with the official government. Despite all these promising to conduct such dialogues, it is obvious that oil and gas import, visa issues, security of Kaliningrad and the Baltic countries should be discussed with the Kremlin rather than with non-governmental organizations.

Another interesting aspect is that majority of demonstrators were not activists of Yabloko and the civil society, but common people, who have never dealt with policy. It is the only thing, which unites Bolotnaya Square in Moscow and Tahrir Square in Cairo – absence of clear political structure.

Orkhan Sattarov. Exclusively to VK