With Putin back at the helm, and fresh from visits to France and Germany, the stage is set for an important EU-Russia summit in St Petersburg.

On the 3rd and 4th of June, the Konstantinovsky Palace in the St Petersburg suburb of Strel'na will host the 29th EU-Russia Summit, the first high-level contact between EU leaders and Russian President Vladimir Putin since the latter's inauguration for a third term in early May, and one which it is hoped will set the tone for cooperation over the next six years. Heading the EU delegation will be Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, and Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission. As a precursor to the summit, President Putin is visiting Germany and France for bilateral discussions with two of Russia's most important European partners, covering many of the same issues likely to arise in St Petersburg, including energy supplies and the political situation in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

Meanwhile, in Brussels, Russian and EU officials have held a "brainstorming" session on a new partnership agreement - something which has been under negotiation for some years, but which has been suffering from "stagnation", according to Vladimir Chizhov, Russia's ambassador to the EU. The previous partnership agreement, which was established in 1994 and came into force in 1997, expired in December 2007; talks began in July 2008 on a new agreement, intended to set out "a comprehensive framework for EU-Russia relations, [including] substantive, legally binding commitments in all areas of the partnership, including political dialogue, JLS issues [justice, freedom, and security], economic cooperation, research, education and culture, as well as solid provisions on trade, investment and energy". The EU side hopes that the St Petersburg meeting will give impetus to the negotiations, which have been held up by lack of consensus over trade and investment, an area potentially further complicated by Putin's plans for a "Eurasian Union" between Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan.

With EU energy commissioner Guenther Oerringer and new Russian energy minster Alexander Novak both attending the summit, the question of oil and gas supply will be a key item on the agenda. Unlike Nord Stream (the direct Russia-Germany pipeline), the South Stream pipeline, conceived to transport Russian gas to Europe via the Black Sea, has not so far been promised EU assistance under the Trans-European Energy Networks scheme. At a pre-summit briefing, Ambassador Chizhov said, "We are looking forward to seeing the South Stream project progressing and we certainly believe that it deserves the same treatment within the EU as Nord Stream and some other pipelines...whose future appears not to be worth much".

Delegates are also expected to focus on visa policy, the EU debt crisis, and foreign policy issues. The prospect of visa-free travel between the EU and Russia has been under discussion since 2010, but concerns remain over drug- and people trafficking, and the matter is unlikely to be resolved at this summit. The EU will require Russia to put in place strict passport checks and high levels of data protection if a no-visa agreement is to be made. Economic problems in the Eurozone are a cause for some trepidation in Russia, as the EU remains Russia's most important trading partner, and, as Dmitri Medvedev pointed out at his last summit in December, 41% of Moscow's foreign currency reserves are held in Euros. In terms of foreign policy, developments in the Middle East, and particularly the recent deterioration of the situation in Syria, will be an important topic - likewise the EU states' planned troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, for which Russia's support will be necessary.

These are all traditional subjects for the twice-yearly summit. Much has happened in Russia, however, since the last meeting of this kind in December 2011. Allegations of falsifications in the parliamentary and presidential elections and the massive street protests which greeted the results have generated international concern, as has the Russian authorities' reaction. Last week, a new bill on fines for unauthorised rallies was passed at its first reading in the Duma; if passed into law, it would raise the penalty for participation to about the average annual salary, with fines for protest organisers would be even higher.

Human right issues are an essential element in EU-Russia cooperation. Since 2005 the EU and Russia have held regular, six-monthly human rights consultations, which have provided for a substantial dialogue on human rights issues. The EU has raised with Russia issues including the human rights situation in Chechnya and the North Caucasus; freedom of expression and assembly, including freedom of the media; the situation of civil society in Russia, notably in light of the laws on NGOs and extremist activities; the functioning of the judiciary and its independence; the observation of human rights standards by law enforcement officials; racism and xenophobia; legislation relating to elections. For its part the Russian side raises matters of concern to it in developments inside the EU.

It is likely that the meeting will also discuss the situation in the South Caucasus where the EU is playing an increasingly important role despite Russian  attempts to narrow the scope of this involvement.

The EU delegation is likely to want to bring up these issues, but how this will play out while pursuing the hoped-for "reset" of relations with Russia remains to be seen.

source: commonspace.eu with EEAS and Ria-Novosti.

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
 Abu Dhabi Talks Resume as Russia Rejects Ceasefire and Disagreements Over Territory Persist

Abu Dhabi Talks Resume as Russia Rejects Ceasefire and Disagreements Over Territory Persist

Trilateral negotiations between Russia, Ukraine and the United States resumed in Abu Dhabi on Wednesday, November 11. The second day of meetings follows an initial round of discussions that received positive assessments from Kyiv and Washington but exposed continuing divisions over the terms of a potential peace agreement. The talks, brokered by the United States, address prisoner exchanges, security guarantees and possible de-escalation, while territorial disputes remain the central obstacle to an agreement. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy described Tuesday's discussions as “constructive and quite substantive”, while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio referred to them as “very productive”. US envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff reportedly told participants that Washington had narrowed the differences between the two sides. Kushner also raised the possibility of developing a new European security framework. However, the US administration has provided few details about concrete progress. Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rejected the prospect of a ceasefire, accusing European countries of seeking a temporary truce to facilitate the deployment of foreign troops to Ukraine. He also dismissed the presence of European representatives in Abu Dhabi, saying: “Well, they flew to Abu Dhabi. Let them sit there.” European officials have held separate consultations with Ukrainian and American representatives but remain excluded from the trilateral negotiations, despite Washington signalling that their participation could eventually be considered. Territorial control seems to be an issue that the parties are unable to resolve. Russia continues to demand the entire Donbas region, including territories it has not captured, while Ukraine refuses to relinquish its land. A senior US official indicated that both sides had demonstrated some flexibility privately, but stressed that territorial arrangements could not be resolved before Ukraine's post-war security guarantees were established. Simultaneously, military escalation continues. On November 11, Ukrainian Prime Minister Sergii Koretskyi reported Russian strikes against six major electricity substations across four central regions, as well as railway infrastructure. Russia also reported targeting Ukrainian military-related facilities and a cargo vessel near Odesa. Meanwhile, NATO fighter jets were activated following overnight drone alerts in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. European divisions over continued assistance to Kyiv further complicate the diplomatic environment. Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz faced opposition from Slovakia, Czechia, Hungary and Bulgaria after proposing to link the EU's next long-term budget to additional financial support for Ukraine. Conversely, Denmark announced a €643 million military assistance package and €20 million for Ukraine's energy sector on Tuesday. As negotiations continue, the contrasting positions of Moscow, Kyiv and their Western partners highlight the considerable obstacles to reaching a settlement. The discussions have opened diplomatic channels, but fundamental disagreements over territory, security arrangements and Europe's future security architecture remain unresolved.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)