RUSSIA AN ‘ENEMY’? WRONG ANSWER
by Aldo Rizzo

La Stampa
Oct 7 2008
Italy

What bizarre answers the citizens of the EU’s five largest countries
(France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain) gave in a
survey that the Harris Poll organization conducted on behalf of the
Financial Times regarding the situation after the war between Russia
and Georgia. Most respondents pointed to Russia as being the greatest
threat to world stability, after China (which was in first place in
previous surveys) but ahead of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. However,
asked if it might be appropriate to boost spending on security,
the same respondents said "no," in order to avoid taking resources
away from domestic welfare programmes. In fact in Italy, in Spain,
and above all in Germany, they even said that they would be opposed
to NATO intervening if the three Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia,
and Lithuania) were to come under attack from Moscow’s troops.

There is about as much point in preaching to public opinion polls
as there would be in preaching to an earthquake. But this is not
an earthquake, it is a reliable opinion survey, and its results
are worrying. They point to a dramatic inconsistency in Europe’s
"perception" of the international situation; namely, that Putin’s
and Medvedev’s Russia is a looming threat but that we need to
busy ourselves with our domestic concerns. And this, after the EU
finally managed to move in unison in the Caucasus crisis while the
US superpower was otherwise distracted by the long changeover in
its presidency. Naturally these are the views of Europe’s citizens,
not of its governments, but in true democracies such as those in
Europe, it is interaction and exchange between the electorate and
those elected that "generates policy."

So it needs to be said that both answers in the Harris poll are
mistaken. It is a mistake to say that Russia, despite its newly
rediscovered aggressivenes which, it has to be said, is the result of a
culpable lack of attention on the West’s part, is more dangerous today
than the situation in Iraq or than Iran’s ambitions. Putin is already
having to cope with the repercussions of his Georgia operation, which
range from the undermining of foreign investor confidence and emerging
domestic economic difficulties (and this, despite the country’s
strength in the energy industry), to looming diplomatic isolation. The
silence exhibited by China and by Russia’s Asian partners, Turkey’s
manoeuvres in the Islamic Caucasus and elswhere (Armenia), and Serbia’s
independent stance count for far more than Bush’s or Rice’s recurrent
upbraiding; while even Russia’s countermanoeuvres in Iran’s favour
can only lead to a nuclear-endowed Tehran becoming a major centre of
seething Muslim revanchism on postcommunist or neoczarist Russia’s
southeastern border. And quite frankly, its war games in the Caribbean
with the local demagogues are nothing but pointless pinpricks.

A return to dialogue with the West is the Kremlin’s sole option. This,
however, as long as the West does not intend to force matters over
Ukraine and over Georgia by wanting them to join NATO as rapidly
as possible.

But that does not mean (and this is why the second answer is mistaken,
too) that the EU should give up the idea of boosting its own security,
including on the military level. Only a strong Europe can compensate
for our energy dependency on Moscow and, at the same time, play a
mediator’s and an oversight role, keeping Russia’s neoimperialist tics
in check and fostering much-needed dialogue. That is what Sarkozy,
the leader of a pro-active and powerful France as well as the EU duty
president, has succeeded in doing to date.