Press Release, October 1, 2013

Galina Mikhaleva, Secretary of YABLOKO’s Political Committee, participated in the International Conference “Russia-EU: the Prospects for Cooperation” which took place in Moscow on September 30. The event was organised by University of People’s Friendship, the University of Potsdam and Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Poland.

Galina Mikvaleva began her report with a brief outlook of Russia-EU relations. “I should say that for both the sides it was a way full of illusions and unfulfilled projects”. She also noted that it all had started with big hopes and ideas about common goals.

Mikhaleva said that the real situation had been increasingly drifting apart from the aims and goals stated in the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement of 1994. The agreement stipulated common values connected with democracy. Two different strategies were adopted in 2000: European Union’s strategy towards Russia and Russia’s strategy towards the EU. “If we compare these documents, we can see that the democratic values in the EU’s document are still there. But the Russian document we can see the word “democracy” only once – in the preamble. In general [the Russian text] runs about economic cooperation. The relations are focused first of all on the economy, the energy sector and the security”, explained Mikhaleva. In mid 2000s it was announced that Russia and the EU had common economic space. “There even was a road map”, she said.

Mikhaleva assessed the present situation as a space “with three distorting mirrors”: “Russia’s view on what the EU wants is very much different from the EU’s view on what Russia wants, as well as self-evaluations of both the sides which also differ”.

She stated that both the sides had transferred to the Realpolitik practices. This means that the relations are focused on the profit the state may get. “When Russia-EU summits take place it looks like the word “democracy” does not mean anything for both the sides, it is almost like “how do you do” for them”.

Russia prefers bilateral relations which are often based on personal conections. The main problem is the inability to see what happens in the field of politics and the attempt to separate economics from politics. “This is the trap the EU has been caught in. It is normally assumed that Russia’s institutions work in the same way as in the European Union countries, but this is not like this”, Mikhaleva said.

According to Mikhaleva, in Russia’s situation the economy totally depends on politics. Mikhaleva gave an example of relations between the EU and China: when the EU develops its relations with China, it is understood that China is not a democratic state. However, in its relationships with Russia the EU somehow hesitates “to call a spade a spade”.

Mikhaleva believes that Russia and the EU are dependent on each other: “Russia has what to sell, but if the West did not buy, there would have been no dependency. In this situation Russia acts from the position of power and can put pressure on Europe”.

Speaking about the new challenges for the EU Mikhaleva noted the consequences of the crises in Europe, the threat of disintegration, the attempts of conversion to alternative sources of energy connected with the desire to get rid of its dependence on Russia’s deliveries of fuels, as well as the Eastern Partnership programme and a low efficiency of the Eurasian Union.

Speaking about Russia’s domestic policies Mikhaleva also mentioned the increasing concern of other countries. The reasons for this are lawsuits against opposition activists, prosecution of dissenting artists and policies towards the LGBT community.

Summing up Mikhaleva noted that throughout its history Russia had always had close relations with Europe, long before the EU. “From this point I am optimistic about the future, despite the hard situation, because these relations are between people rather than governments. And people are interested in this”, she said.

Representatives of inter-state institutions, Russia’s state power bodies, domestic and international research centres, public organisations and universities took part in the conference.

Michael Webb, representative of the EU Delegation to Russia, made a report “The Trends and Prospects of the EU-Russia Dialogue”. Bogdan Koshel from Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, gave his view on what the “European dimension” in the context of the Russia-Germany dialogue was. Daniel Bak from The Bordeaux Institute of Political Studies spoke about neopatrimonialism in the “developing” and developed countries. In addition, representatives of such well-known universities and organisations took part in the conference: I. Busigina (Moscow State University of Foreign Affairs), V.Petrov (Eurasian Economic Commission), V.Zuyev (Higher School of Economics), T.Vladislavleva (Moscow State Linguistic University), S.Gavrov (Novgorod State University), Caroline Dufy (The Bordeaux Institute of Political Studies), D.Kazarinova (University of People’s Friendship), Anna Dmitriyeva (The University of Potsdam), M.Ksiznyakevich (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan) and V.Fedortsev (the Baltic Centre).