POLITICS

MEP Rasa Jukneviciene on the Prospects of Talks between the West and Russia for Georgia and Ukraine

INTERVIEW BY VAZHA TAVBERIDZE FOR RFE/RL

The NATO Russia Council reconvened in Brussels for the fi rst time since 2019, following a series of highstakes negotiations between the US and Russia, the purpose of which was to ease tensions over events in Ukraine and reach some kind of compromise with the Kremlin. For its part, Russia’s Foreign Ministry had rolled forward a set of extensive security demands ahead of the talks as far back as in December. These include a demand for NATO to rescind the promise made to Ukraine and Georgia in April 2008 that they could one day join, as well as a call for NATO not to station large combat forces in its eastern members. However, such demands have been labeled by the West as non-starters. With both sides equally pessimistic, it was not surprising that the Brussels meeting yielded no considerable progress.

Radio Free Europe spoke to Member of the European Parliament Rasa Jukneviciene, Lithuania’s former defense minister and ambassador to NATO, on the prospects of the talks.

WHAT IS YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THE “SECURITY GUARANTEES” THAT RUSSIA IS DEMANDING FROM THE WEST IN GENERAL, AND FROM NATO IN PARTICULAR REGARDING THE EXPANSION?

First of all, I would like to underline that in reality what [Putin] is afraid of most is not NATO per se, but democracy getting closer to Russia. He has seen what happened in Belarus, and he is terrifi ed that Ukraine will manage to become a genuinely European country in the future. He is afraid of his own people, of them looking around, and possibly doing what people did in Belarus. So he has gone back to Soviet tactics and is blaming the US and the West, with the old lines of “The Americans are bad, they threaten the Soviet Union!” Nobody should believe this, but I am afraid some countries in the West might believe that NATO is really the source of Putin’s aggression, and he’s expecting that somebody will treat his demands as real and justifi ed.

Putin believes that the West and democracies are weak. He believes that he can weaken democracies by sowing chaos to worsen their problems and present them with challenges. He wants to be treated as equal with the States, so by starting these negotiations, he believes he can achieve at least something. And he knows full well that some Western countries are not really invested in NATO enlargement when it comes to Ukraine and Georgia, despite them being ready for at least a Membership Action Plan (MAP). We remember what happened in 2008 at the Bucharest Summit, when some countries blocked the MAP to Georgia and Ukraine. I think it was a huge mistake, and provoked Russia into doing what it did next. So I fear that some countries will simply be afraid and they will start to speak the same way as they did in 2008.

THERE ARE FEARS, DESPITE NATO CLAIMING OTHERWISE, THAT GEORGIA AND UKRAINE’S EURO-ATLANTIC ASPIRATIONS COULD BECOME A TRADING CHIP WITH RUSSIA IN EXCHANGE FOR DEFUSING THE SITUATION AT THE BORDER, LEADING TO SOME KIND OF LASTING AGREEMENT. COULD THIS BE ON THE CARDS?

I doubt it’s possible. It’s not the same as it was in 1938 or 1939. As I speak here in the European Parliament, many now have a much more realistic approach towards Putin and what is going on in Ukraine than 10 years ago. I don’t think we’ll fi nd any Chamberlain among our ranks in these negotiations. A lot, obviously, depends on Ukraine and Georgia as well – how committed they are to this path. It was the same situation when we [Lithuania] were asking for Membership Action for NATO membership. When Estonia was invited before us, it actually helped us to make better progress. But it’s very important to at last have some breakthrough in the Eastern Partnership countries so that Russia doesn’t continue to have some invisible veto over these matters.

NATO SEC GEN STOLTENBERG SAID “IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE DEALS WITH RUSSIA”, ADDING THAT HE SEES THE TALKS AS “PERHAPS NOT TO RESOLVE ISSUES, BUT PROVIDE A PATHWAY” – WHAT PATHWAY COULD THAT BE?

My understanding is that the West’s tactic is not to have any deal at all. Containment is the most effective policy towards Russia, as it was with the Soviet Union, because what we see now is Putin rolling it all back to Soviet-era tactics. So be it: The West has enough experience on how to deal with such dictatorships. And when you see what’s going on with the Russian economy, you realize that it is simply not sustainable over the long term. I don’t know how they expect to keep their country going in the future. So that is why I think that may be what Putin is doing now, and it is the beginning of the end.

THE EU AND US ARE THREATENING A NEW SET OF SANCTIONS IF THE SITUATION ESCALATES IN UKRAINE. WHAT FORM COULD OR SHOULD THESE SANCTIONS TAKE?

As I already mentioned, containment is key – so any large-scale sanctions should be tailored around it. This means banking systems, energy resources…curtailing the Kremlin’s income from democratic countries would be a huge response. Everyone should understand that if we can’t stop this kleptocratic, autocratic and aggressive regime today, it will create a lot of problems for our countries tomorrow. It’s not only about Ukraine and Georgia, but about ourselves too.

MANY OF YOUR COLLEAGUES IN THIS BUILDING MIGHT SUGGEST THIS WOULD MEAN A RETURN TO THE COLD WAR STATUS QUO IF SUCH MEASURES WERE TAKEN. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT YOUR WESTERN EUROPEAN COLLEAGUES ARE READY TO FACE THE COSTS?

Some may claim it’s wishful thinking on my part, but I think that the mood has changed. When we voted for resolutions on Russia and Lukashenko, there was a huge majority that were in favor all the time. And today we see Putin is doing his utmost to convince even those who were previously hesitant. Of course, we need more unity; there will be countries who won’t approve of any of that. I don’t know about Hungary, I don’t know about some other countries. But compared to yesterday, today it’s very easy to speak about Russia in Brussels. I remember when I was at NATO some 10 years ago, especially before 2014 and the aggression against Ukraine, it was very diffi cult to speak about Russia. We [the Baltic states] were portrayed as slavophobes, as single-issue countries, but that doesn’t happen anymore.

WHAT ABOUT THE ECONOMIC LEVERAGE THAT RUSSIA HAS ON SOME OF THE BIGGER ACTORS ON STAGE?

When we speak about the economy, this is the biggest challenge for EU countries that have become so dependent on trade [with Russia]. Energy – yes, but we have alternatives, it’s no longer a monopoly. It’s not impossible to solve this problem. Russia is not a huge partner in the economy for the European Union and NATO anymore. Not at all.

REGARDING KAZAKHSTAN AND THE SUBSEQUENT RUSSIAN INTERVENTION, THERE ARE FEARS THAT CRIMEA WON’T BE THE LAST PIECE OF UKRAINIAN LAND THE KREMLIN WILL TRY TO SNATCH. JUST HOW FAR DO YOU THINK PUTIN IS PREPARED TO GO?

There are a lot of question marks over what happened in Kazakhstan- we don’t have very clear information. But one thing we see for sure is that people are not happy with the dictatorship. How Russia was able to intervene, and so quickly, also raises some questions. Kazakhstan was always on the table as a target for the Kremlin to keep infl uence in because in Central Asia, it’s the most important country, as well as the largest and with the biggest economy. So it looks like their interest was for a long time stopping Kazakhstan from becoming an independent actor in the region, not to mention a democratic state.

Gains & Losses

Stock.adobe.com

OP-ED BY NUGZAR B. RUHADZE

If only it were possible to guesstimate all our gains and losses resulting from the inadequate and pernicious political confrontations that have taken place in Georgia over the last thirty odd years; something that interminably gnaws at the nation’s nervous system. The cursed process never stops, seemingly as endless as the universe itself. And what’s most regrettable: it doesn’t help at all. Vice versa: it halts the development instead of promoting the nation’s future.

These torturous thoughts will likely reach the foreign audiences made up of diplomatic corps, representatives of various bodies accredited in Tbilisi, Georgia’s friends in general and, of course, our compatriots living abroad. As a result, they may well lack particularly complimentary thoughts about the ongoing good and bad here. Yet, the hope is that these judgments will be properly understood and taken to heart. Nobody wants to let wrong impressions form of Sakartvelo. On the other hand, nobody has a desire or intention to lie about the situation in the country, so that those who are not indifferent towards Georgia’s fates are prepared accordingly in order to make appropriate decisions in favor of the Georgian people.

What might be the deep-seated reason behind such politicking in this country – vain, fruitless, unintelligent, ambitious, unduly vociferous and full of venomous grudge? There might not be just one, but several reasons, such as the insatiable hunger for truth and freedom in the wake of the long-tolerated and now-demolished soviet socialist way of life; the latent potential of politics, usually in developing countries, to promote personal wellbeing; the revolutionary character of the Georgian people, which was tightly bridled in the soviet era and has now been unleashed; the absence of opportunity to keep oneself busy by being involved in the money-making process; the chronic poverty and social misfortunes of masses that have never been eradicated completely; the predominant feeling that the people involved in those vicious political clashes are not the scions of the same land and culture; the ever-present public division on the issue of preference between the east and the west, not recognizing that home is truly best; the lifelong confusion of conservative and liberal sentiments as modern tools for the civilized struggle between opinions, etc. – the etcetera because the list might never end!

The current political struggle in Georgia seems like the end in itself, like a deliberately assumed obligation, professional occupation, way of survival, passion, endeavor and aspiration, all without the recognition and appliance of the universally accepted concept that any political fi ght is good only when it benefi ts the people, on whose behalf, at least verbally, the politicians wrestle. Consequently, such a massive and vehement involvement in political confrontations is distracting the nation from the main purpose of producing the necessary goods for survival, instead focusing the people’s energy and attention on what the infi nite struggle might result in, playing out as if it is not real life, but a movie about somebody else, not us.

A naïve but still thoughtful rank-andfi le in the street might wonder what the dwellers of those cozily sheltered and comfortable offi ces of foreign accredited bodies in Tbilisi, meant to improve life here, are doing and think of the entire thing – just looking at how this country and its innocent people are being whittled down to nothingness in the hands of those militant politicians who want to hear nothing except their own, already hoarse and raucous voices. No, they don’t mean to blame anybody for the drawbacks and weaknesses of the self-wronging Georgians. But they may be wondering if there is a way to start schooling this generation of politicians in elementary things, like the theory and practice of “turn the other cheek”, or the fl eeting character of life itself: that in just one brief tick, all of today’s raging political animals, listening to whom the electorate is terribly tired, will disappear, and a totally different species of will come into the realm of politics to take good care of this wonderful land.

MEP Michael Gahler: Germany Will Not Be a Country to Make Concessions to Russia

INTERVIEW BY VAZHA TAVBERIDZE FOR RFE/RL

After a week of fruitless talks between Russia, the US and NATO, it seems that Germany is going to get involved in an additional round of talks - according to German media reports, the new German Chancellor wants to meet with the Russian president by the end of January. Prior to the possible meeting between Scholz and Putin, German Foreign Minister Analina Berbock visited Kiev and Moscow. Should we expect a change in Berlin's pragmatic course towards Moscow? How should the West oppose the Russian ultimatums? "We are not going to make concessions, and I assure you, Germany will not be a country that will make concessions to Russia," MEP Michael Gahler, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee from the Christian Democratic Union in Germany, told RFE / RL. He also answered questions related to Georgia.

GERMAN MEDIA WROTE THAT GERMAN CHANCELLOR SCHULTZ MIGHT MEET WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN IN JANUARY. WHAT'S THE MOOD IN GERMAN ON THAT?

I think what has been seen is that we, both in the EU and NATO framework, are all on the same page regarding Russia: to de-escalate, to refrain from any belligerent and violent steps, and to warn them that there will be an unprecedented amount of sanctions to be faced. The Russian troops are now almost two months there in the cold, and simply to let them go home – that’s what we all wish and what we all hope will happen. But it doesn't seem that it will. So there is an urgent need to stand united and fi rm. On Tuesday, the foreign minister goes to Moscow to meet FM Lavrov. I hope she is well prepared, because he has that character Mr. Borrell experienced when he was there, and he will not be polite. But as it is so crystal clear who the aggressor in this fi eld is, I'm pretty sure she’ll make her points in this dialogue that Russia has already heard unanimously.

DO WE EXPECT THE NEW CHANCELLOR TO FOLLOW IN HIS PREDECESSOR’S FOOTSTEPS WHEN IT COMES TO THE RELATIONSHIP AND APPROACH TO MOSCOW?

We have a toughening of the Russian attitude, and the West as a whole is answering to that. I think there is a need to be clear and not to give the impression that there is anything legitimate in what they are demanding. We have an interest in discussing arms reduction, arms control, transparency, but there is no other possibility to make concessions and they will certainly not come from Germany. That is what I expect from the new Chancellor.

WHAT CAN THE EU DO IN THIS FRAMEWORK? WE'VE SEEN HIGH COMMISSIONER BORRELL TRAVEL TO UKRAINE. BUT THEN THERE WAS AN IMPRESSION THE EU WAS SIDELINED FROM THE THREE BRUSSELS - NATO SESSIONS AND FROM THE OSCE IN VIENNA. WHAT IS THE EU ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE?

It's good that for the fi rst time ever, the High Representative visited the east of Ukraine. Mrs. Mogherini should have gone, but she did not. The EU policy is very clear: push back, constrain and engage. To answer the possible military aggression, we have real leverages in the area of economic sanctions. And we as a parliament have been outspoken, we have said- Swift must be switched off. And that will really have an enormous immediate effect. I think also what will have an immediate effect would be that we cancel globally all these tens of thousands of privileged permanent visas that certain people in Russia have in countries of the European Union, all these oligarchs and businessmen that are active and traveling back and forth on long term visas. Those visas need to be cancelled, they must feel it, and they must come to the conclusion that they should tell Putin that they are not happy with his policymaking. And they should tell him now before it all happens, so that this preventive effect gains ground. They should be concerned about their businesses, and know that if they side with Putin, they will lose with him.

AND YOU THINK THAT WOULD MAKE PUTIN RECONSIDER HIS PLANS?

He is a pioneer, but he has come to the end of his wisdom on how to handle his Russia for the future, because if you assess the real situation, he has the problem of a structurally weak industry, lack of innovation, with nothing but some military technology that you can only use for war and nothing else. They are by no means going anywhere. And Covid, too. You see how our stronger economies have suffered from the pandemic. In Russia, they tried to hide the real fi gures of how many died from Covid. Then Putin has to fi nance Lukashenko, he has to fi nance Crimea, Donbas, Luhansk, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria and the war in Syria – they all put insurmountable costs on this weak economy, so he is clearly punching above his weight, something he doesn't have the resources for, and that’s what makes him so dangerous. Because before he admits he's on his knees, he would rather get aggressive and that is where we are at. We should not be afraid, but remain fi rm and steadfast.

MEP Michael Gahler during a debate. Image source: European Parliament

SO FAR, THE EUROPEAN ALLIES, INCLUDING GERMANY, HAVE BEEN STAUNCHLY AGAINST LENDING MILITARY SUPPORT TO UKRAINE. WOULD YOU SAY THAT THAT APPROACH SHOULD CHANGE IN LIGHT OF WHAT’S HAPPENING NOW?

Yes, and it should have changed already. According to Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, any country has the right to defend itself. And when there is a threat from outside, they have a right to have at least defensive weapons. So I would like to see the Ukrainian demand for anti-tank missiles granted. I mean, the Germans have the Milan, the Americans have the Javelin - I think there should be at least one Javelin or Milan available for every Russian tank that is waiting on the other side of the Ukrainian border, to help stop any invasion. Fortunately, the Ukrainian army is not that of the year 2014 any longer. They have built up far better capacities.

Yes, there are 100,000 Russian troops, I'm not so sure that [the Ukrainians] can stand against such an invasion if it happens. That is why I'm fi rmly in favor of supplying them with suffi cient defensive weapons to make it very clear they will not let it happen, they will resist and Russia will pay a high price, aside from the economic sanctions and severe measures. Also, militarily, there will be many dead bodies returning to Russia, which I do not wish the Russian mothers to mourn.

ONE OF RUSSIA’S OUTSTANDING DEMANDS PUT FORWARD BEFORE THE TALKS WAS TO STOP THE NATO EASTWARD EXPANSION. WHAT WAS THE RATIONALE FOR THE KREMLIN TO DEMAND THAT, CONSIDERING THEY ALREADY SEEM TO HAVE A DE FACTO VETO? DOES PUTIN WANT TO PUT IT ON PAPER AS WELL?

And I think they may even see the adverse effect. Ukraine and Georgia wanting to join NATO is nothing new, but it is now being discussed in Scandinavia, Sweden and Finland, who say that we should not apply given this Russian development, we are already cooperating closely.

I really wonder who advises Putin or whether he is resisting any advice he is given? I mean, before the attack on Crimea, and the Donbass, there was never a majority in Ukraine in favor of NATO membership. It is all a situation where I can only come to one conclusion - it's not the weapons of NATO, it’s not the economic prosperity of the EU that is a danger to Putin. It is our way of organizing society in a democratic way. And I bet his biggest fear is that Ukraine, which is historically very close to Russia, could develop a strong economy, a stable democracy, the rule of law, and thereby, show the Russians that one can organize society in a different way. That is the danger that comes from NATO countries, not NATO weapons, but the way we organize society. And everybody knows that he knows it. We know it. And that is why there is no argument for us to allow him to set up a second Yalta. Those times are long gone.

WHAT ABOUT GEORGIA AND UKRAINE? THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISMAY SINCE THE EASTERN PARTNERSHIP SUMMIT, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE MENTIONED.

I understand the frustration, at least for the three countries who have association and free trade agreements, that there was no additional, formal perspective. But my point has always been to fi rst do your homework. And I'm currently not unhappy about the developments in Moldova. I mean, apart from the blackmailing from Gazprom regarding gas supplies. With Georgia, I'm upset when I see how in the light of the Russian aggression, there are still political battles between the President and his predecessor. It is not the time for domestic struggles- they must stand united against this existential threat. The fact that we had Charles Michel three times in Georgia. I mean, that is not something that happens. And we are disappointed. And this disappointment has several addresses. It's primarily the government, because they apparently think they can ignore warnings and good advice. But also, the opposition is not being particularly constructive mood either. The only one who profi ts from that and who is happy is again Putin. So I really can only appeal to all Georgian stakeholders, please do your homework and see your real interest and the long-term perspective for your country.

AT THE 2008 BUCHAREST SUMMIT, GEORGIA WAS A POSTER CHILD OF THE EU, UKRAINE DID NOT HAVE ANY OPEN WARFARE OR ANNEXATION, YET WE WERE DENIED A NATO MAP EVEN THEN. YOURS WAS AMONG THE SKEPTICAL COUNTRIES. ONE COULD ARGUE THIS HASN’T CHANGED OVER THE YEARS, ONLY WORSENED. WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO SEE A SHIFT TOWARD A MORE POSITIVE APPROACH?

It’s not a secret. It was Germany and France. If, in 2008, we had taken the two countries in, perhaps it would have at fi rst caused some outcry in Moscow, but not the reaction we’re seeing now. We would probably be in a different situation now, but we are where we are. The general point is always that when NATO enlarges, it must be at the will of the acceding country. I mean, we don't force anybody into NATO, nor into the EU. That's the difference with Russia. And, of course, it must add to our security. But then we see this situation, and the Russians are not lining up at the borders of the Baltic states, because they are in NATO. It is sad, under these circumstances, to have such discussions. I would have wished that inside Russia itself, there would be the beginnings of the necessary change. It will come, probably not with Putin, at least while he is rich and alive in the Kremlin. He knows he will not leave the Kremlin both rich or alive, so that is why he conducts these policies. But I think it has already caused a rethinking in the West and it is not in the direction of appeasement.