Ideological Bias Prevents EU from Pursuing a Prudent Foreign Policy

The EU’s inability to adapt to the new geopolitical reality turns it from an influential player into an outsider in international processes

Vladimir ROTARI, RTA: “The European Union is looking for, but has not yet found an opportunity to join the negotiations on Ukraine”. These words by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas emphasize very well Europe’s outsider position in the current international processes. This is due to a variety of reasons. Brussels has so far failed to maintain the “fast track” mode established by Washington under Donald Trump. While the US has made at least an evolutionary, if not revolutionary, leap in its attitude towards itself, its interests and place in the world, as well as its geopolitical opponents, thinking very pragmatically, the EU has remained in the old paradigm of “good versus evil”. In the current circumstances, this looks particularly immature and even infantile. Therefore, it is quite reasonable that Europeans are still not invited to participate in negotiations on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, at best hinting at the possibility of doing so in the future. Moreover, Europe’s contribution to ending it is now rather negative. EU de facto promotes the concept of perpetual war and inflicting maximum damage on Russia, adopted as early as 2022 and reflected in the words of Kallas’ predecessor about “victory on the battlefield”. This model is obsolete and detached from the realities “on the ground”. It is covered up with words about the need to achieve better negotiating positions for Ukraine, but in fact the eastern neighbor is used as a barrier that should deter “Russian aggression” during the period of revival of its own military potential. This was recently recognized quite frankly by the head of German intelligence. And Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said that the EU was promising Ukraine early membership in exchange for the continued hostilities. As we can see, Brussels is taking sharply radical positions. It refuses to even minimally recognize Russia as having any interests and concerns, undermines Trump’s peace initiatives with demonstrative arguments about sending troops to Ukraine and further militarization of this country, as well as its rearmament plans worth hundreds of billions of euros, which can be interpreted as preparation for war. Instead of taking advantage of the thawing between Washington and Moscow, promoting peace in Ukraine and renewing economic ties with Russia, which have been one of the milestones of European prosperity for decades, the EU is preparing a massive project to grow the military industry. It envisages preferences for arms production within the bloc, especially in areas where there are capacity shortages, such as air defense. There are also two key ideological points. They are the labelling of Russia as an “existential threat”, the need to contain it will remain even after the Ukrainian conflict ends. And the strengthening of military supplies to Kyiv. Both can hardly be called an investment in a secure and stable future for Europe. On the contrary, Brussels is dragging the continent into a precarious, damaging and largely futile confrontation based on nothing but ideology. It is very symbolic that while the US is abandoning the Cold War-era tools, the EU is ready to “pick them up” and finance them. Moreover, we can hear the incessant criticism and accusations of the Kremlin of non-compliance and violation of agreements amid quite positive assessments of the Americans. That the EU ideologically-driven foreign policy is deficient is well illustrated by the example of Syria. After the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, a transitional government formed by the Islamist organization Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, which is recognized as a terrorist organization in a number of countries, including the US and Russia, has been ruling Syria. Nevertheless, key EU members Germany and France promptly sent their foreign ministers to establish relations with the new Syrian authorities, despite their dubious status. Even the retouched photos of the arriving German minister, Annalena Baerbock, in the Syrian media did not hinder the dialogue. The European ideological black-and-white picture of the world perceives people who overthrew Vladimir Putin’s ally Assad as potential allies and partners. All aspects that do not match this assessment are ignored, which naturally leads to negative consequences. When ethnic cleansing by the ruling regime’s militias began in Syria a little over a week ago and the Internet was flooded with hundreds of horrific videos of civilian executions, Brussels found nothing better than to condemn the victims themselves, i.e. the Alawite victims, calling them “Assad’s forces”, and to support the militants. Only later did the European bureaucrats cautiously recognize the massacre, calling it “a very complex issue”. However, no real measures were taken to influence Baghdad: on the contrary, it was announced that sanctions imposed in 2011 would be lifted. The draft interim Syrian Constitution, which freezes electoral processes and has obvious gaps in terms of inclusiveness and democratic norms, also received a positive response from the EU. In addition, at yesterday’s donor conference in Brussels, in the presence of the Foreign Minister of Syria’s transitional government, €2.5bn was pledged to the country over the next two years. I do not think that financing a government that allows acts of genocide on its territory and flouts elementary democratic principles is the best deal for the European Union, at least in terms of image. We remember how in the 1990s, during the massacres of Tutsi people in Rwanda, France supported the organizers of this horrible genocide and only years later indirectly admitted the error of its judgement. But instead of learning from mistakes, Europe is making new ones, unable to remove ideological blinders. Ukraine and Syria are not the only examples when the European Union’s foreign policy reflects irrational approaches, but they seem to be the most striking ones in the current period. As I wrote recently, strategically this is a dead-end path, which sooner or later will finally push the EU out of the orbit of the processes shaping the new world order.