West launches new series of sanctions against Russia
On Monday, the European Union agreed to impose personal sanctions on a number of Russian officials responsible for “harassing Navalny” (a specific list will appear in a few days), while in the States a whole package of “sanctions and other measures” is being finalized not only for Navalny but also for the hacking attacks (called SolarWinds) on US agencies and companies for which Russia is accused.
All this was predictable – not to mention the fact that sanctions pressure on our country has been going on (in large-scale form, not in the form of individual US actions) for seven years now. One could get used to it? Of course – but it is always interesting the arguments with which our Western “partners” back up their actions. It is the arguments, the arguments, not the motives that drive them. The motives are perfectly clear – and in a speech at the FSB collegium on Wednesday, Vladimir Putin reminded us of them.
“We are faced with the so-called policy of containing Russia. We are not talking here about competition, which is natural in international relations, but about a consistent and very aggressive line aimed at disrupting our development, slowing it down, creating problems along the external perimeter, provoking internal instability, undermining the values that unite Russian society, and ultimately weakening Russia and putting it under external control, as we see, we know this, happening in some countries in the post-Soviet space.”
These objectives are not secret at all: as Putin noted, “It is enough to get acquainted with the public strategic documents and very frank statements of statesmen of a number of countries.”
The unfriendly attitude towards Russia and a number of other independent, sovereign centres of world development is not even trying to hide.
All methods of containment are also well known, Putin simply listed them: “They are trying to tie us down with economic and other sanctions, to block major international projects in which, incidentally, not only we but also our partners are interested, to interfere directly in the public and political life, in the democratic procedures of our country. And, of course, tools from the arsenal of special services are being actively used.”
All this has happened more than once in our history: all these methods have been used in various combinations against us, so we have learned how to counteract and respond. This is exactly why Putin said that “such a line against Russia is absolutely futile” – no amount of pressure will get us to make concessions or undermine us from within. At the same time, Russia declares its role as a defender, defending its sovereignty and interests – not an aggressor.
Moreover, we have always stressed our willingness to develop relations with all, to engage in an open dialogue based on mutual trust and respect – as Putin reminded us this time. But what do we hear in response?
Russia is not interested in cooperating with the European Union and the Russian authorities are leading the country towards authoritarianism, EU foreign ministers concluded at a meeting during which they decided on new sanctions. And Josep Borrell, head of European democracy, called Russia “a neighbour that has chosen to behave like an adversary”, stressing, however, that “we must define a model to avoid constant confrontation with neighbours who have chosen to act in the opposite way”.
That is, Europe in particular and the West in general represent the case that it is Russia who seeks confrontation and does not want to develop relations. Moreover, it turns out that Russia constantly interferes in European affairs and puts pressure on the EU. Therefore, the EU will now build relations with Moscow based on three principles.
These are stated by Borrell: to resist when Moscow violates international law and human rights; to contain contain when Russia increases pressure on the EU; and to cooperate with Russia in those areas in which the EU would be interested. Resistance, containment, cooperation where it is beneficial to the EU – a fighting set of European diplomacy. But what is it about?
The term “violation of international law and human rights” is used to cover practically everything – from Crimea and Navalny to any other topic, both domestic and international. Sanctions for not having gay marriage in Russia – that is a violation of human rights? Please. Sanctions for refusing to “return” Abkhazia to Georgia? Undoubtedly. Sanctions for another killed in Europe emigrant or refugee from Russia, or indeed anyone (as in the long-rumoured story of a Chechen from Georgia killed in Berlin) – at any time. Hacked into the computer system of the German Bundestag? Of course, Russia must be punished.
Similarly, pressure on the EU can be called anything at all. Separatists voting for the secession of Catalonia? We are looking for a Russian trail. Representatives of the Alternative for Germany parliamentary faction are coming to Moscow? The Russians are digging under Merkel. Moscow protests against the dismantling of monuments to Soviet soldiers in Poland or the Czech Republic? Putting pressure on the unhappy and freedom-loving Eastern Europeans. Building a gas pipeline? They want to divide Europe. Refuse to build it? They want to freeze Europe. Absurd? No, it’s a calculated response.
That is, the EU wants the unilateral right to regulate relations with Russia, the right to punish and pardon as it sees fit – while Russia should take it for granted and not resent it, and also be ready, as soon as called upon, to cooperate, but only in the areas that benefit the good Europeans.
But in reality, it is exactly the opposite: it is the EU that acts as an adversary. It pressures Russia, conditions us, lectures and demonises us, meddles in our internal affairs (even now Borrell has reported that “the Union will expand support to civil society in Russia”) and takes it for granted. It is the EU (albeit on an Atlantic initiative) that is trying to tear Ukraine away from Russia, change the historical boundaries of East and West, expand its living space at the expense of Russian civilisation – and wants Russia to quietly accept this? Such impudence could still be explained a quarter of a century ago, even 15 years ago, when Russia was fighting for its own survival and could neither engage the whole Russian world nor demand that Europeans behave decently, but it is ridiculous now to expect Russia to obey a negligent pupil.
Russia will rebuild relations with Europe on acceptable terms in any case – and the sooner the EU understands this, the easier and faster this process will go. There is no alternative to this: Europe simply cannot afford either to fence itself off from Russia, or to turn from a neighbour into our enemy. Or rather, it can, but only for the last time.
Peter Akopov, RIA