Debate: EU-Russia relations, European security and Russia’s military threat against Ukraine
Date: WEDNESDAY, 16 FEBRUARY 2022
Speaker: Josep Borrell Fontelles
Language: ES

El gran éxito de la Unión Europea es precisamente el haber renunciado a la guerra como forma de resolver los conflictos. Y por eso tenemos que estar con Ucrania, tratando de prevenir una guerra en nuestras fronteras. Y eso forma parte fundamental de lo que llamamos política común de seguridad y defensa, que tengo el honor de intentar desarrollar. Y la presencia aquí hoy, en este Pleno, de las instituciones de la Unión: el Consejo Europeo, con su presidente, la Comisión Europea con su presidenta y el Consejo, al que tengo el honor de representar y cuyas formaciones de Asuntos Exteriores y de Defensa presido, marca la unidad europea frente a la posible agresión de Rusia contra Ucrania. Y esta unidad se ha hecho más fuerte y patente en estos días. Y creo que es una de las grandes consecuencias positivas de esta crisis. Ha habido una aproximación común y todos los Estados europeos han respondido unánimemente para dar una respuesta que deberá concretarse en lo que llamamos sanciones o medidas coercitivas, según el Tratado. Sanciones que deberá aprobar el Consejo a propuesta del alto representante y que habrán sido elaboradas con la inestimable cooperación de la Comisión Europea, para medir cuáles son sus costes y sus consecuencias. Y, ciertamente, bajo la dirección política del Consejo Europeo. Y eso ocurrirá si Rusia agrede a Ucrania. Pero déjenme que insista en el aspecto fundamental de nuestra unión, que es la consecuencia más positiva de esta crisis; una crisis que se ha basado en la amenaza a la integridad territorial de un Estado; una crisis que afecta a la estructura de seguridad en Europa, que no puede ser puesta en cuestión a través de amenazas; y una crisis que afecta al derecho de cada Estado soberano a escoger libremente sus estructuras de seguridad y sus relaciones internacionales. Allow me to talk a little bit about what the role has been of European diplomacy in these events. It has been said that Europe was ‘missing in action’. We have heard that Europe was missing in action and things are happening without our presence, without our participation, led by the United States, who are negotiating over our head. I think that we have to respond to this criticism, which seems at all unfounded for several reasons.  First, because Member States of the Union have been consistently debating the issue of security in Europe and Ukraine, and we have achieved remarkable unity. Because several Member States, France and Germany, have taken a number of political initiatives to promote a peaceful settlement of the crisis, and these initiatives have been carried out in coherence with the positions of the Union and in conditions of greater transparency.  Third, because Russia deliberately tried to ignore the existence of the European Union by sending letters only to the United States and NATO in December, considering that we are completely irrelevant and have nothing to say about the security issues in Europe. For Moscow, security in Europe is being defined in Washington.  Later, when they noticed that despite this dismissive attitude, nothing was going on, Mr Lavrov finally decided to send a letter to the 27 Member States that he had ignored until then.  Why such a U—turn on the Russian position? For two reasons.  First, because they realised that the European front was not cracked and Atlantic solidarity was very strong. So he tried the manoeuvre, which was to send letters to the 27 Member States, hoping to have 27 different answers.  But in this case, Mr Lavrov didn’t succeed because we sent him a single letter, saving him the time to read 27 letters, all of them equal. Just one – one letter representing the position of the European Union on behalf of the 27 Member States.  This is a good example of how we Europeans can work together, and together with our allies, with the US and other like-minded countries with which we have had a continuous and very much positive coordination. So we have been present, participating in the negotiations – if we can call them negotiations, or at least conversations  – until now. So what can we envisage next?  Well, we don’t know. Nobody knows. There are encouraging signs, but also very much worrisome events like the vote in the Duma asking Putin to recognise the independence of the two – let’s say – republics, in the Donbas. We don’t know what Putin is going to do. But what is clear is that we have to continue offering both things at the same time – the will to negotiate, to be ready to participate in talks because yes, Russia also has security concerns and that has to be taken into consideration. On the other hand, to prepare our capacity to respond – our dissuasion tools, sanctions as the President of the Commission and the President the Council had been referring to.  On that, we have been working and on that we are ready to act. But most of all, we are ready to continue negotiations, talks, in order to look for a diplomatic solution to the worst crisis that Europe has lived since the end of the Cold War.  I repeat again, this crisis not only affects Ukrainians, and not only Europeans – it affects the direction of humankind.