Debate: Visit of the VPC/HR to Russia in the light of the recent crackdown on protestors and the opposition
Date: TUESDAY, 9 FEBRUARY 2021
Speaker: Josep Borrell Fontelles
Language: EN

Instead, there is a deep disappointment and growing mistrust between the European Union and Russia. Many of the traditional pillars of Russia—European relations are giving way. Conflicts in Ukraine, the situation in the South Caucasus and Moldova—Transnistria are fuelling EU—Russia tensions, but they are also their product; as is Belarus. Russia’s economic ties with Europe have been severely hit by the sanctions. Energy shipments that have been for decades the backbone of the strategic relationship between Moscow and Europe will be deeply affected by the greening of the world economy. Maybe during our discussions we can come to this issue.  Political dialogue has come to a standstill since the 2014 conflict in Ukraine. Since then, the Russian economy has been shrinking. Today, their GNP per capita is 30% less and the adversity of the present political climate makes values and principles a sore point once again.  And then there is the Navalny case. It is in this context that I decided to travel to Moscow last week. The purpose of the visit was twofold. First, to convey eye to eye, face to face, the European Union’s position on matters of concern to us: human rights, political freedom and the situation of Mr Navalny. This I did and they didn’t appreciate it. The case of Alexei Navalny was at the centre of my tense exchange with Minister Lavrov.  Second, as part of the preparation of the discussion on the next European Council on Russia relations, scheduled for March, I also wanted to test if the Russian authorities are interested in a serious attempt to reverse the deterioration of our relations and seize the opportunity to have a more constructive dialogue. The answer has been clear. No, they are not. They are not if we continue to put the political situation and human rights issues in the package. But human rights are part of our DNA and we cannot refuse to talk about them. My visit included consultation with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, meeting with civil society representatives, think tanks and representatives of European business, journalists and a number of European Union ambassadors. I also paid tribute to Boris Nemtsov, who was murdered six years ago, shot to death on a bridge near the Kremlin. His tragic assassination, never clarified, was a warning of what we are seeing now.  This struggle was taking place in a particularly tense context, and this visit presented obvious risks. I took them. I took them, on the one hand because we condemned the handling of the Navalny affair and, on the other, because it allowed me to assess, first-hand, the challenges of engaging with Russia. I had no illusions before the visit. I am even more worried afterwards. What do I take from my interaction? First, the Russian Government is going down a worrisome authoritarian route. The space for civil society and freedom of expression continues to narrow and there seems to be almost no room for the development of democratic alternatives. The Russian authorities have shown in the Navalny case that they are merciless in stifling any such attempts. Indeed, the current power structure in Russia – I would like to talk about the ‘power structure’ in Russia, not about Russia because Russia is the Russian people – combining vested economic interests, military and political control leaves no opening for the democratic rule of law. The strong pushback on any discussion related to human rights and democratic values indicates that they consider this to be an existential threat. Second, the visit confirmed the long—running trend whereby Russia is disconnected from Europe with little or no progress on conflicts in our common neighbourhood, and, as I said, they are disconnected because they consider our liberal democratic system as an existential threat to them.  During my meeting with Minister Lavrov, the discussion became heated as I called for Mr Navalny’s immediate and unconditional release, as well as for a full and impartial investigation into his assassination attempt. I also asked him if I could meet Alexei Navalny. They addressed me to the court. This was impossible due to time constraints and the fact that Mr Navalny was sitting in front of the court at that time, but a senior member of my delegation met with Mr Navalny’s lawyer during the visit and we will continue maintaining contacts with the team to signify our support.  We also had exchanges on foreign policy issues. I insisted on the need to advance toward full implementation of the Minsk agreements, to fully respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. I underline the need to heed the call of the people of Belarus to freely choose their President.  However, on a few issues, notably on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), we have managed to establish effective cooperation over the past years. There may be other issues, such as supporting Israeli—Palestinian dialogue, where we could expand our engagement, but the overall environment of the visit did not allow us to explore this further. In my exchange, one thing became clear: there is no intention on the Russian side to engage in a constructive discussion if we address human rights and political freedom. The news of the expulsion of three diplomats on the basis of unfounded allegations came when we were ending our talks and they didn’t come through an announcement from the Russian side. We heard it from the networks. I understood it was a clear message. The meeting was over. I asked Mr Lavrov to reverse his decision, but to no avail. That same night, I issued a statement denouncing such a confrontational move.  Now, allow me to look at the conclusions I draw from the visit. I’m very concerned about the perspective of the Russian authorities’ geostrategic choices and the implications of the action they will have for us and for Russian society. We are at a crossroads in our relations with Russia and the choices that we make will determine the international power dynamics in this century, and notably whether we will advance towards more cooperative or towards more polarised models, based on closed or on free societies.  First, we will discuss this issue at the Foreign Affairs Council on 22 February and at the European Union Council in March. There we will provide guidance on the way forward and it will be for Member States to decide the next step, but, yes, this could include sanctions. I will put forward concrete proposals, using the right of initiative that the High Representative has. Containment efforts should include combining robust actions against disinformation, cyber-attacks and other possible hybrid challenges. Second, at the same time, despite any difficulty, it is of key importance to preserve a space for official engagement where it is in our interest. Russia remains our biggest neighbour. We must define a modus vivendi that will avoid permanent confrontation. Third, but not last, we must find a way to continue engaging with Russian society. Russia mostly forms a European country and an important part of the Russian population wishes to maintain strong links with the European Union and harbours genuine democratic aspirations. We should not turn our back on them. Maybe the Russian power wants to disengage and to disconnect from Europe, but we should not disconnect from Russian civil society, from the Russian people.  We have to find a way to advance on these issues and, in doing so, to preserve our unity and determination. Without unity, there will not be determination and, without determination, we will not be able to address a good policy. Russia has been trying to divide us. They seek to divide us. They haven’t succeeded. On Ukraine and on human rights issues, they haven’t succeeded in dividing us. This seemed to be a clear objective during my visit. We should not fall into these traps. On my side, I will continue defending the need to speak and maintain open channels of communication, looking each other in the eye, especially on issues that are conflictual. Defending Navalny’s rights in Moscow when his trial was unfolding is a way of showing that foreign policy cannot be reduced to issuing written statements from a safe distance, from my office in the Berlaymont or the External Action Service. I think it was important to show our concerns, directly in person, at the right moment and in the right place. I hope this discussion will provide enlightenment for the future decisions of the European Union Council and to look forward to how to handle our relationship with Russia.