Distracting maneuver of Putin

Europe-2016: a new relocation of peoples, actual Syria and forgotten Donbass

The unprecedented influx of refugees from the Middle East and other dysfunctional regions, the sluggish Ukrainian crisis, the preservation of sanctions against Russia and the embargo introduced by the emergence of food from Europe, terrorist attacks in Paris in January and November, Greece, balancing on the verge of exiting the eurozone, the growth of the popularity of the right and left -wing radicals ... A long time ago, the European Union did not know the European Union ... Such a stormy and gloomy year as 2015.

What lessons did Europe learn from the events of the last 12 months and what to wait for it in the coming year, including in the Russian direction? Radio Liberty was told about this by one of the leading experts in European integration, the chief expert of the Center for International Studies (CERI) of the SIns-Po (Paris) Institute , Professor Jacques Rupnik .

- In 2015, in connection with the migrant crisis, the comparisons of the current situation with the era of the great resettlement of peoples and the fall of the Roman Empire often sounded. Are such parallels legitimate? Or do you rather agree with the Chancellor of Germany Angel Merkel, who became famous for the phrase of Wir Schaffen Es - “we can handle”, in the sense that Europe will be able to absorb the waves of new immigrants?

Jacques Rupnik

“I cannot call myself an optimist like Madame Merkel.” I do not believe that everything will definitely be fine and "Europe will cope." But I can’t agree with the currently fashionable look at what is happening: they say, this is the end of our civilization, etc. Parallels with ancient Rome, which fell under the pressure of the barbarians, may be interesting, but they do not seem accurate to me. We will not necessarily cope, but we have a chance to cope with this situation if we take some measures in time. First of all, we stop lying to ourselves and abandon demagogic statements, and sometimes xenophobic tantrums. Yes, we are talking about a huge influx of refugees - the largest mass movement of people in Europe since the Second World War. These people need to not only be equipped. You need to understand which of them can really stay here, and tell them: live, work, be our neighbors, but observe our laws and respect our values. Why am I still lacking optimism? Because today in Europe two crises crossed - internal and external.

- Do you mean the crisis of the eurozone, first of all, the events around Greece, about which so much spoke last summer , and then under the influence of the migration waves almost forgotten?

Two crises have crossed in Europe today - internal and external

- Yes, but not only. The internal crisis in the European Union has two dimensions. The first is what you said: the financial crisis, which arose back in 2008 in the United States, captured Europe, and as a result of it, stress arose through the EU along the North - South line. The EU was divided into the more prosperous countries of the North and the Center of Europe - and the southern countries that suffered from the crisis stronger. And Greece generally personifies both the internal and external crisis: last year she was in the center of the debt collision, and it was not able to restrain the flow of refugees on its borders. That is, it became a weak link in Europe in two respects at once.

- And you do not agree with those who believe that the European Union should be rid of this weak link?

-In my opinion, this is not the best solution. The mistake, indeed, was the adoption of Greece in the eurozone and, probably, to the Schengen zone too. As a result, in the summer we almost reached Grexit - the exclusion of Greece from the eurozone. But fears prevailed that, firstly, this exception would cost more financially than the preservation of Greece in the single currency zone, and secondly, that the political price would be too large. Europe, which has been engaged in integration for 60 years, would have entered the stage of disintegration. And this is such a thing that is easy to start, but it is difficult to stop. So, as I said, as a result of the crisis of the eurozone there was a split along the North -South line, which seemed to replace the former European "crack" - between the East and the West.

Refugees on the border of Greece and Macedonia, summer 2015

-But it again came-and just because of the migrant crisis, which most EU members from Central and Eastern Europe look with much greater fears and alertness than their Western neighbors.

- Exactly. In general, I consider the expansion of the EU to the East a huge historical success. The European Union was a magnet that attracted Eastern European countries, prompting them to reforms, to transformation. The results are evident. Suppose Poland: 20 years ago, its GDP per capita was only a third of the average indicator for the European Union, now more than two -thirds. And so, when everyone was ready to applaud the fact that the border between the East and the West in the EU almost already disappeared, it turns out that in some other respects she did not go away. And this not only concerns the attitude to refugees, but also what can be called a deviation from democracy. It began in Hungary after Viktor Orban came to power five years ago, and in 2015 continued in Poland - with a victory in the elections of the Law and Justice party . At one time, the Poles loved to talk about European solidarity-when they sought to join the EU, when in the 90s they wanted to write off external duty, etc. And suddenly this concept of solidarity has disappeared for them. The same thing in Hungary. It turned out even more symbolic here: the country, which in 1989 was the first to destroy the border barriers of the Iron Curtain, in 2015, the first began to build a fence on the path of migrants . Thus, Central Europe showed that the whole historical period has ended for it.

- We will move further to the east. The Ukrainian crisis in the past year could not be resolved. How do you evaluate European policy in this matter: how adequate, too soft or, conversely, is not flexible enough towards the Kremlin?

Sanctions are the only real thing that Europe could do. And it seems that they have an effect

- For me, in general, the main success of Europe in this matter is that she generally managed to find a common position. After the annexation of Crimea, all EU countries condemned the actions of Russia, but there were fears that this would be limited to this. There were very different views: some countries, like Poland or the Baltic states, looked at what was happening as a threat of their own security, and therefore required a very stringent reaction. But when you look at the Crimea or Donbass from the other end of Europe - say, from Italy, Spain or Portugal - this problem seems to you relatively local. For the countries of the Mediterranean, the main events are now taking place not in the east, but in the south of them, from where hundreds of thousands of migrants come from. But Europe managed to overcome this split, primarily thanks to the unity of the positions of Germany and France. So a new format arose, the so -called "Norman" , within the framework of which European countries conduct a dialogue with Russia and Ukraine. I managed to find a certain framework for agreements - I mean documents signed in Minsk .

Well, the main success of the European Union in this direction is that we managed to agree on sanctions against the Kremlin and extend their action several times. The main power of Europe in relation to Russia is economic. In the end, those countries that were very restrained in relation to sanctions realized that the principle of political solidarity in this case is very important. The point is not only that the sanctions, in fact, are the only real thing that Europe could do in this situation, but also that the sanctions seem to have an effect.

Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orban at negotiations in Budapest, February 2015

- It is enough to see how the ruble fell in relation to the euro and dollar last year ...

- Well, sanctions are not the only factor, of course, oil prices also fell ... But nevertheless, we can talk about the new European political context, about the unity of European policy in a very important issue.

-Why, in this case, in Europe, there are still a lot of Putinversteher- "understanding Putin", what are the Germans call these people? I mean many European politicians (probably the most famous Marin Le Pen ) who advocate the cancellation or softening of sanctions, for cooperation with the Kremlin? What is this: a rational approach or misunderstanding of European interests?

- I would divide the “understanding Putin” into two categories. Some are representatives of law -Popopulistic, anti -European, nationalist parties. They see in Putin not just a leader who openly question the international order that has developed after the Cold War, but also declares its fidelity to conservative values, opens against the "decadent" liberal Europe. In addition, he returns to politics a rough language of interests and undisguised power, this right radicals traditionally like it. But it’s not only about them. The borders of the European Union are now two crises. One is in the east, in Ukraine. The second is in the south, in the Middle East and North Africa, from Iraq and Syria to Libya. There, in fact, several states broke up. Two threats come from there at once: terrorist and associated with a huge influx of migrants. So, the second type of Putinversteher is those who say: a minute, here is our main problem, it is in the south. Yes, trouble is happening in the Donbass, but this should bother first of all Ukraine, we imposed sanctions, but in general we should have our own priorities, and for us the southern direction is more important. And the fact that Putin actively entered into a conflict in Syria means that he felt this trend.

- You want to say that he pushes Europe to the south - they say, do the Middle Eastern affairs and do not pay attention to Ukraine?

You won’t tell Putin now: you, you know, is a partner for us, but at the same time we cannot stand you

- Yes. Putin managed to strengthen the position of those in Europe who advocates to pay attention primarily to the south. For public opinion, the terrorist threat is now much more relevant, especially after the attacks in Paris , and it is associated with the southern direction. Putin’s interest here is clear: having intervened in the situation in Syria, he becomes not too desired, but a partner of the West. After all, in this case, you won’t tell him: you, you know, is a partner for us, but at the same time we cannot stand you, because you are doing things unacceptable to us in Ukraine. So in just a couple of months the situation has changed: Europe is more and more inclined to solve the problems related to the migration wave and what caused it-the situation in the Middle East, and in relation to Ukraine it is still satisfied with the status quo. It must also be recognized that Putin has recently not particularly emphasized the role of Russia in supporting separatists in the Donbass, everything is slightly muffled there. However, if you return to Syria, the coalition arising there can only be temporary, because each of its participants pursues its goals. But the general result is so far: Putin managed to distract Europe's attention to the south.

- We touched on three topics: migration crisis, internal problems of the European Union and relations with Russia. What can be expected in each of these areas in 2016?

- As for the migration crisis, it is not enough for Europe here, you need to act very quickly. In fact, the Schengen and Dublin "exploded" last year (Dublin agreement determines the procedure for providing asylum in the European Union. - RS) . Both agreements were de facto canceled. Greece said that she could not protect his borders under the pressure of refugees, and then Chancellor Merkel told Syrian refugees to “welcome” without indicating any limit. There was a situation of uncertainty that nationalist and anti -European forces can use. The first thing to do is to strengthen the boundaries of Europe and conclude new agreements: Schengen-2 and Dublin-2. If this is not done, the disintegration that I spoke about will only intensify, and there will be reason to worry about the fate of Europe.

Hungarian military put barrage on the border with Serbia, September 2015

The second topic is related to the first. We see how supporters of national sovereignty and opponents of integration return to the European scene on the forefront. In many cases, these are democratically elected governments, which, however, openly question the principles of the rule of law. Take a look at Poland - there is now an attack on the Constitutional Court , on a free press. These are processes that are probably very much to the same to Vladimir Putin. At the same time, in fact, we need no less, but more integration to solve problems in the eurozone in order to jointly protect our external boundaries. So the crisis of the EU political unity, let's call it so, will be one of the main European topics of this year.

Well, the most difficult - external challenges. The European Union made it impossible for military conflicts between its members. But the fact that we abandoned power policy does not mean that our neighbors in the east or south think the same way as we are. There was a return of geopolitics. Putin did it with his actions in Ukraine.

- Europe should learn to think geopolitically again? Become a little like Putin? Is it not dangerous?

There was a return of geopolitics. Putin did it with his actions in Ukraine

- This is a big challenge for Europe. She can no longer look at the world, based on what she herself is. We must remain an example of a free society that could inspire our neighbors, and maybe the international community as a whole. But the world is changing, and Europe should learn to think in new categories. And this means emphasis on a common foreign and defense policy. We thought about ourselves as a carrier of the so -called Soft Power, "soft power", but last year we have more sharply encountered Hard Power. And, I hope, Europe began to understand that no one would solve our problems for us, ”says French political scientist Jacques Rupnik.