Mediaboss Marketing

Second treaty of Maastricht brings full union closer

By John Palmer in Brussels7 February 1992

Foreign and finance ministers from the 12 member states will today sign a treaty which aims to turn the European Community into an economic union and a global political power, before the end of the decade.

They will do so in the Dutch city of Maastricht, which last December saw the bruising climax to years of negotiations for a treaty on European Union.

The Commission, the European parliament, and most EC governments see the Maastricht treaty as an interim stage in the process leading to full European union. The treaty is a legally and politically messy compromise, between the majority who wanted to move faster to union and a minority primarily but not exclusively the British who were determined to slow down if not reverse the trend towards a de facto federal union.This is an edited extract. Read in full.

By Julie Wolf in Maastricht8 February 1992

The French almost missed the show, Norman Lamont opted out and Douglas Hurd wasnt sure what he had signed. But compared to the last time the European Communitys foreign and finance ministers got together in Maastricht, yesterdays ceremony to sign the Treaty on European Union was a breeze.

The Dutch province of Limburg pulled out the stops. There were hussars and a band to welcome the dignitaries, glorious spring flowers everywhere, the Limburg Symphony Orchestra playing Mozart and, of course, a champagne reception and banquet.

Still, there were some hitches. The French delegation, led by the foreign minister, Roland Dumas, and the finance minister, Pierre Beregovoy, steamed in after the pre-signing speeches had started, apparently delayed by a parliamentary debate on the Habash affair. The new Europe goes ahead even without the French, one onlooker commented.

Mr Hurd, meanwhile, responded with an embarrassed laugh when asked what was contained in the two bound volumes the ministers autographed. We had better find out what we signed, the foreign secretary accompanied by Treasury Eurosceptic Francis Maude, standing in for the Chancellor, Mr Lamont was heard telling officials.

Whatever it was, it would not lead to a federal Europe, Mr Hurd said. Logic was now running against more centralisation, with a Europe of 17 or 18 nations likely in the not-so-far-off future.

This was a view not shared by the president of the Commission, Jacques Delors, who used his speech to call for a federal Europe, while insisting he was not trying to reopen an old argument.

For the Dutch prime minister, Ruud Lubbers, the treaty was just one step to ever closer union: with would-be members queueing up, he said, negotiations on a new political union treaty might have to begin before 1996.

8 February 1992

With the Maastricht treaty just signed, and Portugals presidency only in its second month, the foreign secretarys unveiling of our new EC logo may appear slightly odd timing. (Not to dwell on the oddness of the logo itself, in which the lion remains half outside the EC symbol.) To announce British presidential priorities five months before we take over begs a fairly large electoral question. Yet it does focus minds otherwise preoccupied upon the vast range of issues raised by European Union which have oddly faded since last years storms. It also poses two very necessary questions: how to ensure a smooth presidential transition, and how to define the enlargement which Britain (like Portugal) sees rightly as an urgent task.

The six monthly EC presidential cycle generates an arbitrary but on the whole positive sort of democracy by alphabet. Though unkind words have been said about the recent sequence of presidential terms by Europes smaller nations (Luxembourg, the Netherlands and now Portugal) there are advantages in the perspective from a smaller power base. Portugal has largely shaken free of the Atlanticist outlook which once placed it at the same table with Britain. Six years of growth since entering the Community has created a feeling of benefit in Lisbon which Britain does not share. Its energetic Foreign Minister Joao de Deus Pinheiro says he hopes to pay back this help by working hard on a European approach. Portugal has its own interests, particularly in agriculture where its farmers will be served by the pursuit of a reform which is neither radical or superficial. But Lisbon can still talk more credibly of a universalist approach than Paris or Bonn or London with their substantial and sensitive national interests. Portugals location also encourages a proper concern that the South, both of Europe and beyond, may suffer if western resources and attention are focused exclusively upon eastern Europe and the ex-Soviet Union. Portugals commitment to press ahead at once with all the dossiers which have been generated by Maastrichts three pillars, rather than establish priorities, may yet come unstuck by June. But in a period when the main task is to establish new structures and agendas for political and economic union which flow from the decisions of the last summit, such a broadly based effort still makes sense.

The issue of enlargement has itself been potentially enlarged by the mounting pace of disintegration in the east since Maastricht was agreed. The task for the Portuguese presidency ahead of the next Lisbon summit is to define both an adequate strategy and its institutional consequences. The EFTA applicants clearly have to be dealt with first, but how much wider should the EC go, and how soon? The Treaty of Rome should not be a closed club, but different forms of decision making will have to be devised for a Community which could number 15 quite soon and 20 or more by the end of the decade. By the normal economic criteria even Hungary and Poland would hardly be ready to join by the next review in 1996. But are these necessarily the right tests to apply? The ECs patronage in central and eastern Europe serves a far more urgent purpose of immunisation against the risks of instability, even without formal defence guarantees. The real task may be how to find new forms of association, with much more meaningful political body, in which the frontiers can be extended without diluting the ECs core strength. Enlargement has been tarnished by the suspicion that it can serve as an alibi for slowing the agreed pace of union. But the EC may yet be faced with new crises in the east which inevitably result in some slackening of effort elsewhere.

Beyond the Treaty and enlargement lies the still broader role of the EC as a future superpower. Here too a country which in modern times has never claimed great power status may more easily regard the EC as a great world actor. Certain EC members, Lisbon suggests, could play a more prominent part in dealing with areas where they have special leverage, as Portugal itself does over East Timor. Similarly as the Middle East peace process flags, it would be appropriate for Britain particularly when it becomes president to claim a higher EC role.

Read this article:
Treaty on European Union signed in Maastricht archive, 1992 - The Guardian

10 February 2022

The European Union wants to encourage investment in "sustainable" activities to help it get to net-zero by 2050.

The European Union aims to be climate neutral by 2050. To help that process it has come up with a system to "facilitate sustainable investment". The Taxonomy Regulation provides investors with guidance on economic activities that can be considered environmentally sustainable. It also obliges European companies to report their level of taxonomy-aligned undertakings. Any activity excluded from the list faces being cut out of sustainable finance products and will find itself at odds with long-term EU policy objectives.

There has been a split within the European Union over whether or not nuclear power - and natural gas - should be included as being "sustainable". Nuclear energy was left out of the initial Delegated Act pending further assessment. But this further assessment by the EU Joint Research Centre,reviewed by two further expert bodies, concluded that the technology is sustainable. As a result, the Commission has now taken steps to included nuclear energyas a transitional activity in the taxonomy by adopting a Complementary Delegated Act (CDA).

Supporters of nuclear power, including 12 EU member states who publicly backed its inclusion, say that nuclear is a low-carbon power source that must be part of any energy mix to tackle climate change, and does not cause more significant harm than other industries included in the taxonomy. They say that the science, and evidence-based policy support its inclusion. Opponents say that it should not be included because radioactive waste means it is not sustainable. For the European Union it has been one of the highest profile recent issues where France - which backs nuclear - is on the opposite side to Germany.

Sectors which are responsible for about 80% of the EUs direct greenhouse gas emissions have been initially targeted, including:

In future the taxonomy is expected to be expanded to cover more economic sectors.

An economic activity must substantially contribute to at least one of six environmental objectives without causing significant harm to the others:

The European Commission has included certain nuclear and gas activities in the "transitional"category of activities - ones that "cannot yet be replaced by technologically and economically feasible low-carbon alternatives, but do contribute to climate change mitigation and with the potential to play a major role in the transition to a climate-neutral economy, in line with EU climate goals and commitments, and subject to strict conditions, without crowding out investment in renewables."

- Advanced technologies with closed fuel cycle ("Generation IV") to incentivise research and innovation into future technologies in terms of safety standards and minimising waste (there is no end date for this bit);

- New nuclear power plant projects for energy generation, which will be using best-available existing technologies ("Generation III+"), will be recognised until 2045 (date of approval of construction permit);

- Modifications and upgrades of existing nuclear installations for the purposes of lifetime extension, will be recognised until 2040 (date of approval by competent authority).

The CDA sets out many safety and waste-related requirements for nuclear activities to be considered sustainable, in addition to specific Do No Significant Harm criteria. Many of these are in line with existing EU regulation and expectations but some go beyond. In general the requirements are more restrictive than for other energy technologies already included in the first Delegated Act. The special requirements include:

- Accident Tolerant Fuel, which is not yet commercially available for all reactor types, mustbe used at all existing plants and Gen III new-build by the year 2025.

- The project has been notified to the Commission and the Commission has given its view whether all criteria have been satisfactorily addressed.

-A high-level waste repository to be operational by 2050, and for final disposal facilities for low and intermediate-levelwaste to be operational in the country where a given project is based.

- Nuclear fuel cycle activities are currently not included in the CDA as enabling activities and nuclearinvestments outside the EU remain excluded from the taxonomy.

The European College of commissioners backed the plan and among the pro-nuclear power countries there was a welcome that nuclear power was included in the taxonomy but the warmth of the welcome was tempered by some of the restrictions and conditions on what was included, as well as the expiry dates.

For those countries opposed to nuclear powerthere was disappointment at its inclusion. Austriasenergy and climate minister Leonore Gewessler called it "greenwashing"andis threatening to take legal action. WWF Europe called on the European Parliament to vote down the plan.

European nuclear trade body Foratoms Director General Yves Desbazeille welcomed the CDA but said some of the criteria put forward for nuclear would "prove very challenging to attain" and "we remain disappointed that nuclear continues to be treated as a transitional technology we firmly believe that it contributes to climate mitigation objectives and does not cause more harm than any other power-producing technology already considered as taxonomy compliant."

Sama Bilbao y Len, director general of the World Nuclear Association, said: The adoption of this CDA is a hugely important milestone that the international financial community cannot afford to ignore the Commission has been right to reject political pressure to keep nuclear excluded from the taxonomy. But in seeking a politically acceptable compromise, it has produced some conditions that are not scientifically justified or applied consistently to other energy technologies. This will hinder the EU from achieving its energy and environmental goals.

The European Unions decision to include nuclear in its "sustainable"list has been closely watched around the world. It will have implications for EU investors and businesses operating outside the union, as well as foreign investors into Europe. The EU's decision is also likely to set a precedent for countries around the world as they set their own sustainable investment frameworks and work out which technologies to prioritise for support in the path towards net-zero.

The European Parliament (whose members are elected by voters across the union every five years) and the European Council(which is made up of the governments of the 27 member states) have four months to scrutinise the Complementary Delegated Act. They can request an additional two months of scrutiny time if they need it.

To stop the CDA coming into force there needs to be a reinforced qualified majority opposing it in the European Council - so at least 20 member states representing at least 65% of the EU population would have to oppose it. Given the number of countries known to back it, this seems extremely unlikely to happen. TheEuropean Parliament because it can object if a majority of its members vote against it in plenary (i.e. at least 353 MEPs).

If the European Council and the European Parliament do not object to it, the Complementary Delegated Act will enter into force and apply as of 1 January 2023.

Researched and written by World Nuclear News

More:
A guide to the EU's 'green' taxonomy - and nuclear's place in it : Energy & Environment - World Nuclear News

Let's be clear: so far, the approach to tackling the climate crisis has not been equitable between the European Union and African Union.

Their relationship is bound up in colonial and post-colonial exploitation, and structural inequalities, thrown into sharp relief most recently by rich countries' failing to do enough to address the vaccine inequity and economic damage of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Negotiations on a new partnership between the two have been on a rocky path. The climate and energy elements have not been helped by an EU-centric European Green Deal approach, without enough attention to increasing climate impacts in Africa, African ownership, and without putting people at the centre of the debate and the solutions.

The African Union in turn, rejecting the European Green Deal approach, has not centred its own vision for solving the climate crisis.

Both sides failed to ensure meaningful participation and inclusion of civil society voices in the development of the partnership. But if they can correct these failures, the EU and AU should be natural partners - exchanging expertise on climate adaptation and loss and damage, developing successful models for just energy transition, and allying for successful outcomes on ambition, finance, adaptation and loss and damage at the next UN climate summit, COP27, hosted by Egypt in November.

On 17-18 February leaders of the African Union and European Union will meet at a summit in Brussels where they will confirm a new partnership covering global challenges.

Heads of state from the EU and AU will sit down together at various roundtables, including one on climate and energy transition, digital and transport (connectivity and infrastructure) where Egypt is touted to head a discussion on COP27.

An investment package built on existing funds from the EU budget's Global Europe Instrument will be showcased at the summit, with Brussels busy trying to drum up further support from EU and African Union member states and institutions in the final days.

Key tests will be how the summit deals with climate impacts and solutions.

Africa is particularly vulnerable to climate change whilst having done least to cause it. Africa has been experiencing record-breaking heat in the last years, and millions are right now facing severe hunger due to devastating drought in eastern Africa.

The forthcoming IPCC report on adaptation, impacts and vulnerability, to be adopted by governments by 25 February, will lay bare the latest assessments.

With the summit a first major milestone after COP26, the EU and AU should demonstrate that they will make clear progress on and go beyond the Glasgow Climate Pact, which failed to deliver enough for climate vulnerable countries, including missing the $100bn [88bn] climate-finance commitment.

This requires the EU to scale up its climate finance, and re-orientate its focus and show that it is serious about upping its game on adaptation and addressing losses and damages, to regain trust of climate vulnerable countries.

It can do this through increasing financing (at COP26, parties agreed to double adaptation finance by 2025), supporting African adaptation initiatives, and learning from African communities' expertise on locally-led adaptation, including indigenous peoples' knowledge and guardianship of nature protection and restoration.

Crucially the EU needs to show that it is ready to move forward the agenda on loss and damage finance by engaging with African countries to understand needs on the ground, and with their negotiators to build a constructive path towards the Glasgow loss and damage dialogues to be held in June.

Furthermore, without strong action from the EU at home to rapidly scale up and accelerate its own emissions reductions, and phase-out fossil fuels, Africans face even greater risks from climate impacts.

The other side of the coin is supporting livelihoods, households and businesses through renewable energy solutions.

African countries themselves have identified renewable energies as a key contribution to their national climate plans submitted to the UNFCCC.

In a vast and diverse continent this requires understanding and tailoring to needs in different regions and localities - from clean cooking to developing green industries.

The EU's much-touted Global Gateway Strategy, set up as an offer to counter Chinese investment and with first projects to be showcased at the summit, will likely focus on big energy infrastructure.

While important, it's much easier for these projects to attract public and private investment. A key test will be how smallholder farmers, hard to reach communities, and informal workers who make up the backbone of many countries' economies, can be supported towards universal 100 percent renewable energy access, an end to energy poverty, and solutions to support women's and household needs, as well as the future generations.

At the same time the EU should commit to an end to any finance in fossil fuels which undermines these goals.

In higher income countries the partnership should support a just transition out of fossil-fuel industries and into quality green jobs and healthy environments.

A just energy transition partnership between the governments of South Africa, the EU and others at the last COP is a step in the right direction, if designed right.

The EU and African countries should now go on to develop successful partnership models, involving all stakeholders in the planning, incorporating finance for infrastructure and affected communities, technology transfer, technical assistance and training, and just transition funds for affected workers and communities.

The EU and African countries can't afford not to repair relations and make the most out of this summit. They need to work for concrete outcomes that balance years of neglecting tackling people's and environmental needs in an equal, fair, inclusive way.

See the rest here:
Making the most of an unequal African-European dynamic - EUobserver

LARISSA, Greece (AP) Greek farmers say they are determined to shut down all the countrys major highways to protest rising energy costs.

At a gathering south of the city of Larissa in central Greece, they decided Sunday to demand a meeting with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis.

As all of Europe is facing rising energy costs, Greek farmers are demanding subsidies to reduce their fuel costs and an end to the electricity price adjustment cost, which reflects changes in the price of oil and natural gas imports.

Greece has among the highest taxes on fuel in the 27-nation European Union, accounting for about two-thirds of the price.

Diesel costs about 1.60 euros (per liter), while in other European countries it is 70 cents, Asterios Tsikritsis, president of the farmers union in the city of Tirnavos, north of Larissa, told The Associated Press.

Greek farmers have already been blocking a major road connecting Larissa to the city of Kozani to the northwest for about ten days. On Sunday, they spilled milk on the road as part of their protest.

At present, it is questionable whether us and our flocks will survive, said Argiris Bairachtaris, president of the Tirnavos animal farmers union.

Go here to see the original:
Greek farmers threaten to block highways in energy protest - Associated Press

Russia was initially interested in allied relations with the new Europe, but in the years since the onset of Putin's rule, it has made a dramatic shift

For centuries, Europe has been a symbol of the fragmentation of nations and countries, intense rivalry, and the source of both world wars. But it also became an experimental laboratory, where the European Union, a unique political system, was created. Ukraine has recognized this system as a desirable and comfortable environment, consistently pursuing own course toward European integration.

Russia was initially interested in allied relations with the new Europe, but in the years since the onset of Putin's rule, it has made a dramatic shift. To explain this metamorphosis, the "theory of humiliation" was invented. They claim Europe has allegedly offended Russia and pushed it away. In fact, the reason was quite different.

Uniting for peace

The dream of a united Europe is centuries old. Although it was Western European nations who originally came up with it, the dream was shared and pursued throughout the continent.

Among the first to try to translate it into a practical plane was the Slavic monarch George of Podbrady, King of Bohemia from 1458 (and the Czech King from 1469) to 1471. He put forward a radical proposal that can be considered the original model of the EU: he proposed a treaty between all Christian states, including Hungary, Poland, Bohemia, Bavaria, and France, to resolve all differences by peaceful means to end all fighting. The union implied a joint parliament and other common institutions.

Although his idea was never meant to be realized, it prevailed. From time to time, projects to unite Europe have been suggested by philosophers, public figures, and politicians. Later, in 1831, Polish scholar Wojciech Jastszembowski formulated a document entitled "On Eternal Peace among Nations" ("O wiecznym pokoju midzy narodami"). In essence, it was a draft of the first constitution of Europe, united as one republic without internal borders, with a single judiciary and institutions composed of representatives of all nations.

In early 20th century, the idea of creating the "United States of Europe" was actively promoted by Tomas Harrig Masaryk, the first president of Czechoslovakia.

Mykhailo Hrushevskyi also dreamed of a European federation, of which Ukraine should become a part, one of the "strongest, toughest, and most certain".

After two world wars and against the background of the Soviet threat, Europeans finally began to realize their centuries-old dream with the active support of the United States.

But the Treaty establishing the European Union, also known as the Maastricht Treaty, was signed only on February 7, 1992. Its ratification brought the European community to the level of political integration.

"For our freedom"

Back in 1993, the Ukrainian government declared integration into the EU a foreign policy goal. This desire was natural, as Ukraine belonged to the European civilizational space. Its been connected with Europe geographically, historically, and culturally. And probably, most importantly by the type of its political system.

Historian Yaroslav Hrytsak noted that the key argument in support of this thesis was formed by Ukrainian liberal historiography in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In particular, he refers to the words of politician Viacheslav Lypynskyi: The main difference between Ukraine and Moscovia is neither the language, nor the tribe, nor the faith, but a different political system forged through centuries, a different... method to organize the governing class, a different distribution of the wealthy and the poor, the government and the citizenry.

To a large extent, Hrytsak continues, the developments seen after the fall of communism confirmed this assumption. He mentions an article by Russian historian Dmitri Furman entitled "Ukraine and Us" (1994). He wrote that the first years after the fall of Communism showed how sharply Russia and Ukraine diverged in their political trajectories. There was a deep political crisis in both countries. But in Russia, it ended with the president deploying tanks to open fire at the Parliament HQ in 1993. In Ukraine, on the other hand, the political struggle between Leonid Kravchuk and Leonid Kuchma ended with the former peacefully handing over power to the latter. Ukrainians, Furman concluded, passed the exam for democracy, which the Russians failed, and it remains unclear, when they will be able to pass it.

However, in late 2013 and early 2014, Ukrainians had to fight for their right to be part of Europe at the cost of their own lives. To live based on freedom, democracy, rule of law, and human dignity. They still have to defend their choice in the ongoing war with Russia, the neighbor that seeks to divide Europe and assert own dominance.

While European values are a fairly recent concept, they are based on old traditions, adds Hrytsak. This is about the fundamental feature of modern Europe democracy. The European democratic tradition dates back to ancient times. It meant certain very practical benefits. Herodotus was already trying to explain how a small tribe of Greeks could defeat a huge Persian power and he interpreted the Greco-Persian war as confrontation between the West and East. His explanation was simple and convincing: the Persians and other tribes fought under the coercion of a despot, while the Greeks fought as free people. This same idea was repeated by Pericles in his speech at the vigil for the fallen Athenians: we live free in our country, and for our freedom we are ready to fight fearlessly and die on the battlefield, says Hrytsak.

Thus, the words of the Ukrainian anthem echo the words of the thinkers of Ancient Greece, the cradle of European democracy.

Speaking of a modernized and motivated Ukrainian Army, France24 compares it to the biblical David, a young shepherd who defeated the giant Goliath despite seemingly unequal forces. Because he fought for the freedom of his people.

Russia integrating with Europe

The above-mentioned Masaryk and Hrushevskyi (at least at some stage) believed that Russia should be part of a united Europe. Many Russian and Western experts believed in the 1990s that Russia would integrate into European structures. Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyriev dreamed of Russia's membership in the EU, and British Prime Minister John Major called for "expanding the imagination" and inviting Russia there. The EU-Russia Cooperation and Partnership Agreement was signed in 1994 and entered into force on 1 December 1997.

Even Putin in the first years of his administration did not rule out future integration with the EU. "We intend to work towards the unification of our legislation with the European one and do not intend to reduce our ties with Europe, but, on the contrary, we intend to expand our cooperation in all areas. I want to emphasize this in all areas. And I do not rule out the possibility that at some stage in our relations between a united Europe and Russia, integration-related issues will come up on the agenda, he said in an interview with French TV channels in October 2000.

In addition, he stressed that EU enlargement did not cause any fears" in Russia, moreover, it "welcomed" this process.

...but

But as soon as 2004-2005, the conflict between Russia and Europe flared up over the presidential election in Ukraine. Putin categorically denied letting Ukraine get any closer to Europe.

Some Western politicians and experts believe it was an "insult" the West allegedly inflicted on Russia by moving into the territory of Moscows supposedly legitimate interests that was a major reason for the deterioration of relations between Russia and the West. Perhaps this is what Emmanuel Macron meant when he spoke about the need to understand the "modern traumas of this great nation (Russians ed.).

However, such an interpretation is offensive primarily to Ukraine. But its not the only thing. If Russia had adhered to the declared course of European integration, how could Ukraine's European integration "offend" it?

The reason is evidently something else.

In 2010, at a conference in Germany, then-Prime Minister Putin asserted his confidence that Russia would one day join the Eurozone. And this was against the backdrop of the raging crisis of that time!

Over the years, Russian propaganda simultaneously denigrated the EU, predicting its imminent demise and promoted the hypothetical idea of a Great Europe (from Lisbon to Vladivostok). They claimed that Russia's accession to the European Union would give it new strength. The Europe Plus Russia alliance could become a true world superpower, the only power in the world capable of competing with the United States. Russia was actively promoting this idea through its "proxies" across Europe.

The Kremlin made every effort to get the UK to withdraw from the European Union. It did nothing to hide its joy when this finally happened. The pro-Russian Croatian newspaper Advance, among others, wrote that Russia could take the vacant seat.

This may be indeed in line with the Kremlin's secret dream. This may also be a useful lens to look at the statement made just a week ago by Putins press secretary Peskov: The Anglo-Saxons, of course, are really boosting tensions on the European continent. Thats something for us, Europeans, to think about... And until we, Europeans, realize that it hurts us all, I don't think we can fix it.

That is, Russia still does not seem to mind taking its place in Europe. But it does not want to be an equal among equals; it wants to dominate. Not only in Europe but also in the world. In scientific terms, this was called proportional representation at the European table and historic British-Russian rivalry for world domination. Criticizing the united Europe, Russia frequently claims that its father was allegedly Hitler (who, in turn, was an Anglo-American invention, of course).

In addition to the fact that the idea of a united Europe is hundreds of years older than Hitler, he did not "unite" but conquered it, creating the complete opposite of what Europeans dreamed of: a centralized empire with a dominant ethnic group for which Europe was only necessary living space. He started it with protecting Germans, the keepers of great culture and language, who allegedly suffered in Czechia and Poland because they had to study some inferior languages.

If we recall his well-known envy of the Anglo-Saxons, mixed with hatred, contempt for the Americans as a "rootless" nation incapable of high culture, and respect for their economic power at the same time, the resulting image seems almost identical to that of the "Russian world."

Back in 2004, Eurozine noted that in Russian political discourse, there is a certain opposition of Europe and the West (USA, NATO), where the West is portrayed as a destructive entity of sorts which is constantly trying to undermine the balance in Europe, while Europe is a passive, suffering entity, an arena of political and military struggle. It is deprived of its own agency, the only question is who will govern it.

According to Vladislav Surkov, a long-time apologist and grey cardinal of the Kremlin, Russia will get its share in the new global gathering of land (or rather space), confirming its status of one of the few globalizers, as it happened in the times of the Third Rome or the Third International. Russia will expand not because it is good, but because this is physics.

The original version of absolute values

What really happened in the above-mentioned period between 2000 and 2004, if no one "insulted" Russia?

As oil prices continued to climb, Russia's political elite was becoming more confident. The nuclear factor was now strengthened by the component of raw materials. This allowed Russia to get a sense of its own grandeur and self-sufficiency. It was then that the Russian political class turned back to authoritarianism and the old great-power ideology, that is, the form of personalist power that is natural and familiar to Russia.

The infamous arrogant question, "Who are you to f***ing lecture me? in the spirit of new Russian diplomacy, was addressed by the Russian Foreign Minister to the British Foreign Secretary later, in 2008. This was the first statement, but far from the first thought. Shortly after Putin came to power in Russia, the attitude was that Russia had nothing to learn from the West, if anything, the West was supposed to learn from it instead.

This was phrased in a more civilized manner by political technologist Gleb Pavlovsky in 2004, in his foreword to the book Russia without Europe: Today, we see a rigid official an interpreter of ideals teaching Euro-Atlantic values to inferior easterners (did Anton Chekhov know about them?)... Nations are invited to adopt a standardized package of values together with the authority that has the right to control them ... Russia defines itself as a European state, which is at the same time a civilization the bearer of its own version of absolute values.

Here again, Hitler was called the founder of the European Union, and Russia a freedom-loving anti-fascist country that opposes "totalitarian unification." The text also stated that Russia would not allow the unification of its part of Europe. What this meant was clearly not the European part of Russia, since the entire book is dedicated to the idea that Russia was allegedly left behind by Europe. In this veiled manner, Russia defined the sphere of its supposedly legitimate interests.

Russia rose from its knees and got the taste of sovereignty, which it understood as the mandate to do whatever it wanted. The political (network) structure of the European Union scared it, and even more so the growing impact of the international humanitarian law and human rights, which restrict the power of state leaders over the citizens of their countries.

Simply put, the Russian political class was concerned that the people could no longer be considered serfs, and that power in general was losing its clear outlines.

Anton Chekhov, anti-fascism, and the "theory of humiliation" masked the trivial turn to authoritarianism in domestic policy and aggression in the foreign arena.

The three wise monkeys

Even though Ukraine had proved its desire to join the EU years ago, it had to break loose off the claws of a fraternal "embrace," kicking and screaming its way out. Of course, Russia's policy is not the only reason why Ukraine has still not become a European Union member. But it has always been the main reason. Before Russia resorted to outright aggression, it had created more covert obstacles blackmailing, manipulating, and corrupting Ukraine - and lying that it was Russia that was being "insulted" and "humiliated."

Former Danish Foreign Minister Uffe Ellemann-Jensen answered a question about the West and Russia the following way: "I do not support the popular idea that the West failed to help Russia in the 1990s. Let me remind you that the West provided great assistance to Russia. But in Russia itself, there were no conditions for a new Marshall Plan. I also do not accept the theory of humiliation of Russia from the West because the enlargement of the EU and NATO was part of the raison detre of these organizations, and this enlargement did not pose any threat to Russia. I am convinced that the West lost just when its political leaders ceased to be honest in their relations with Russia. For various reasons, they were silent when Russia rolled back from democracy, and they looked on when Russia violated the principles approved by the OSCE and other international institutions. I'm not saying that Western leaders should have isolated Russia. On the contrary, they had to raise their voices when Russian leaders renounced their commitment to freedoms, human rights and relations with independent states. Apparently, the West adopted the position of the famous three monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. I doubt that such a position of the West can encourage the leaders who have had a taste of authoritarianism to respect Western values...

Center for Strategic Communication and Information Security

Read this article:
Why is Russia scared of the European Union? - Ukrinform. Ukraine and world news