Why can't Russia Join the EU? - and an urgent warning to Mr 'P'

I have reluctantly to respond yet again to Mr ‘P’, having said I wouldn't, because if I did not do so he or others might imagine that I accepted some or all of what he says. My rebuttals are marked ****

 

He writes:  ‘From Mr Hitchens... "But he (Mr ‘P’) still can’t somehow acknowledge that Ukraine’s change (following a violent foreign-sponsored mob putsch) from being a non-aligned country to being a member of an anti-Russian economic and political alliance is not detrimental to the interests of Russia and against Russia’s (openly and repeatedly expressed) will." The first question must be obvious: what "anti-Russian economic and political alliance" has Ukraine joined?

 

I reply **** I suppose you could loosely call it ‘The West’, as Ukraine has definitely joined itself to the ‘West’ without obtaining full membership of either of the alliances generally taken to form that amorphous thing. The Association Agreement contains political and military clauses and brings Ukraine under partial EU jurisdiction.  It is not EU membership but it is a clear political, military and economic link with the alliance which includes both NATO and the EU. Mr Yatsenyuk and others have been clear , in their own statements, that the move cancels Ukraine’s previously non-aligned status. So with whom, then,  are they aligned, if not with the EU-NATO combination generally known as ‘the West’?

 

Mr ‘P’ :’ The Association Agreement is a treaty. Ukraine hopes to become a member of the EU by 2020. Ukraine has at present not 'joined' anything.

 

I reply***That is not the case. See above. Full membership of either EU or NATO is not necessary for a country to be clearly linked to this alliance. It would be absurd formalism to claim that no shift in Ukraine’s alignment took place when the Association Agreement was signed. Ukraine has certainly joined something. It looks to me like an anti-Russian alliance.

 

Mr ‘P’ : The EU is of course not "anti-Russian".

 

I reply ****  Isn’t it? Currently the EU is engaging in sanctions against Russia, imposed on Russia for pursuing its own sovereign national interests in a part of the world where the EU had no jurisdiction at the time. The EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs (at the time) gave her open endorsement to the Kiev mob, when it was demanding that the Ukraine align with the EU. The EU has spent £300 million on influencing civil society organisations in Ukraine to favour an EU alignment detrimental to Russia. The EU has never made any serious offer of membership or even association to Russia, even though Russia is no more of a ‘basket case’ than Ukraine (rather less of one, most dispassionate observers would say) , or than one or two existing EU members I could name. The EU has in fact been more friendly to Turkey, an Islamist-run country with severe corruption and an increasingly despotic government, than it has ever been to Russia.  NATO, which makes no real pretence that it is not an anti-Russian alliance, is now more or less coterminous with the EU in Europe and membership of it is usually spoken of in the same breath by countries in eastern Europe and the Caucasus who are seeking to join the anti-Russian bloc.

 

Mr ‘P’ The EU is principally 'anti war-in-Europe', the founding impetus of the organisation.

I reply ****I really would have thought that no reader of this weblog would persist with this tedious old advertising slogan, so many ties demolished here.  Can he actively be seeking to provoke? The original European Community had no impact on the danger or otherwise of war in Europe in general. It helped cause the only major European war since 1945, by accelerating the break-up of Yugoslavia and recognising Croatia as a sovereign state. It is now helping to cause another one.  

 

It was indeed intended to institutionalise the conflict between Germany and France, and to soothe France’s wounded pride at losing its place as top nation in Europe, while also concealing German hegemony in an empire which never openly acknowledged who was in charge of it. Had there been any doubt about this, then the end of the Cold War would have confirmed it. If the EU had ever been intended to be a Europe-wide organisation, with a general European aim,  it would have set out to include Russia, the largest country in the reunited post-1989 Europe. It didn’t. Nobody ever says openly why not , because the truth is so obvious. Russian membership of the EU would necessarily challenge German domination of the organisation, because Russia’s population ( 144 million) is so much greater than that of Germany (80 million) or any other member state that Russian representation on EU bodies would necessarily be overpowering.  This has been a pardonable German worry since the age of Bismarck, and one of the reasons why Germany has always worried about the rest of Russia and repeatedly sought to prevent it. If the EU were called 'The German Empire', as it ought to be, then the exclusion of Russia wouldn't really need any explanation. However, for reasons we all know, it can't be called that. 

 

 

 

Mr ‘P’ :The EU has since 2004 sought closer ties with Russia through its European Neighbourhood Policy, but Russia has always refused to cooperate, instead preferring to define four 'common spaces' of cooperative activity. It is essentially the same thing except that Russia doesn't feel itself to be a junior partner - the other 'neighbourhood' countries comprising mostly developing countries - as it believed it would within the ENP. As to Russia joining the EU, it is often mooted but is not likely in the foreseeable future. There is no way that Russia would at present meet EU criteria for membership.

 

I reply****I have heard this said about so many countries which have then, not long afterwards, been welcomed into the EU despite ropey economies, shameful corruption and dreadful legal and administrative systems.  It simply won’t do as a reason for excluding Russia from the path to membership.

 

Mr ‘P’ : Russia is a basket case politically and economically and would drag the EU into an uncertain abyss.

 

I reply**** No more than Ukraine, in fact much less so, because of its huge energy reserves, its advanced military industries and rather sensible decision to build a surplus.

 

Mr ‘P’ : The 'common spaces' will for the present have to stand surrogate for 'neighbourliness' between the EU and Russia. And then we have Mr Hitchens' 'German plot' theme, which no doubt excites the imaginations of conspiracy buffs, but can he be serious? Half the contributors to this blog think it's an American plot. Still another bunch think it's a NATO 'plot'. The 'plot' has become a belief system not unlike a religious belief system which in the face of deeply held a priori prejudices (hopes and desires in the case of religious belief systems) serves as the preferred 'best explanation'.

 

I reply***This is what is so exasperating about trying to argue with people such as Mr ‘P’. I have never used the word ‘plot’, as he well knows.  I have carefully elucidated the century-old development of German policy towards Russia, explained its liberal origins, its political, diplomatic and economic rationality, explained why it persists despite all the changes in Germany since it began. I’ve explained the USA’s long-term interest in seeking (though not necessarily finding) the federalisation of Europe, dating back to Woodrow Wilson. I have quoted exhaustively from, and referred to, reputable historical works on the subject. And the response of Mr ‘P’ is to sit on this pile of facts and reason like a performing flea squeaking ‘Plot! Plot! He says there’s a plot!’ .

 

As my poor mother used to say between clenched teeth  when my brother and I had provoked her beyond endurance ‘Give me strength!’.

As it is, I am going to give Mr ‘P’ a Christmas present. He can either withdraw this suggestion that I have alleged a German plot, which I regard as uncivilized behaviour unworthy of a member of this small society of seekers after truth,or I shall take the greatest personal pleasure in excluding him from this blog forever and a day. It’s poisoning the wells. It’s not serious, and it wastes my time. Five days are allowed.