TOWARDS AN INCREASED DIALOGUE WITH RUSSIA

European Union

The European Union keeps a number of communication channels open while making clear that its relation with Russia is not “business as usual.” The European Union also maintains cross-border collaboration with Russia, as well as its support to Russian civil society. On multilateral issues, the European Union keep a dialogue open with Russia on Iran, Syria, the migration crisis, and ISIL, based on the notion that talking to Russia is better than isolating it and may allow for limited cooperation in areas of mutual interest. Admittedly, the Ukraine crisis limits the European Union’s ability to engage Russia on a number of topics, including the Eurasian Union. The European Union has closed or excluded Russia from a number of forums of discussion and canceled annual EU-Russia summits; EU-Russia talks on visa facilitation; and negotiations on a framework agreement encompassing all EU-Russia trade, including energy. Member states, too, have suspended important bilateral meetings or summits with Russia. This general principle, however, has been ignored by a few member states such as Greece and Italy. The attempt by a number of European states to maintain dialogue with Russia also reflects a general concern that an overly military response to Russia might be seen as provocative and could lead to an escalation of the conflict

Initially top bilateral political contacts were frozen. Today, in contrast, there are an increasing number of high level meetings. Recently, in April 2017, Mogherini visited Moscow. At the end of May 2017 Putin was received by Macron in the prestigious setting of Versailles. These visits signal an increased willingness to engage in high-level diplomacy with Russia and to cooperate in selected areas. Renewed high-level contacts suggest there is a growing political will in Europe to move to a next stage. Political leaders seek alternative channels to talk to each other, be it in the margin of summit meetings (the G20 for example) or in ad hoc diplomatic formats (such as the Normandy format with Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia).  

Germany

Germany, too, has been particularly supportive of maintaining a dialogue with Russia, insisting that NATO should leave open the possibility for reestablishing a positive relationship with Russia in the future. Germany has no specific end state in mind regarding the reestablishment of a dialogue with Russia other than trying to develop a new and as yet uncertain modus vivendi. Officially, Berlin-Moscow relations remain strained. But Germany has in fact sent more of its politicians and businessmen to Russia than any other county. 

France

France has suspended defense cooperation with Russia but maintained scientific, economic, and cultural cooperation—and, more generally, any other area not affected by sanctions. One particular area of continued cooperation has been counterterrorism intelligence sharing, including on issues such as Chechen networks in France and the India-Pakistan area. Russia and France also share concerns about foreign fighters returning from Iraq and Syria. Recently, France and Russia have signed a statement on the launch of the ‘Trianon’ Dialogue. This will be a permanent structure for the interaction of civil societies on both sides to promote closer ties and a constructive dialogue, like the current exchanges between Germany and Russia aimed at allowing young people, economic bodies, and academics and thinkers to engage in dialogue and become closer in order to overcome all kinds of miscommunication.

Norway

Norway maintains technical cooperation with Russia on a number of specific areas that include the Arctic, governance of fisheries, search and rescue in the Barents Sea, and nonproliferation.

Other countries

There are many different voices in the EU member states who question the effect of the EU’s sanctions against Russia and argue that they should be lifted as soon as possible. There is also a growing impression that relations with Russia are too important. It must be kept in mind that the imposition of sanctions is an EU policy and not a member state decision, so that while a number of states may prefer to reduce or even eliminate the current measures, individual countries are unlikely to be able to break with the broader consensus. Several countries have expressed doubts on the usefulness of sanctions, including Greece, Hungary, Italy, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia. So far, a consensus regarding sanctions has been maintained despite the 28 members’ widely different understandings of what Russia’s actions mean for their own security and their suffering, to various degrees, from the impact of the sanctions and countersanctions on their own economies.

Questions to be addressed

1. What perceptions and representations of “self” and “other” emerge in EU-Russia dialogue?
2. Is there any contradiction in their perceptions of each other? Indeed, the way the EU and Russia perceive each other is indicative of their own worldviews and political thinking. Therefore, in order to understand what partners “think” of themselves (their self-image) and of the other (their partner), it is important to examine information that Russia and the EU communicate about each other.
3. What do the EU and Russia expect to happen as a result of their dialogue ?
4. What do the EU and Russia aim for in their dialogue?
5. What do both sides take to be a self-evident truth in the texts of political statements and in their messages to each other?
6. What goes unsaid in the EU’s and Russia’s messages to each other?
7. What do both sides mutually produce as a result of their dialogic relations?–
8. Do the EU and Russia refer to something or somebody in their speech acts towards each other?
9. Is the relationship between the two sides influenced by a “third?”