Volledig verslag van de vergaderingen

Dinsdag 9 juni 2015 - Straatsburg

3. De stand van zaken in de betrekkingen tussen de EU en Rusland (debat)

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über den Bericht von Gabrielius Landsbergis im Namen des Ausschusses für auswärtige Angelegenheiten über den Stand der Beziehungen EU-Russland (2015/2001(INI)) (A8-0162/2015).

  Gabrielius Landsbergis, rapporteur. – Mr President, first of all let me thank all the shadow rapporteurs – Ms Jaakonsaari, Mr van Baalen, Ms Fotyga, Mr Meszerics and Mr Šoltes – for all their work, and for the proposals that were made and amendments that were tabled during the process of preparing this report. I would also like to thank all those colleagues – MEPs and Parliament staff – for their very valuable input into this very sensitive and important matter that we are here to discuss: EU-Russia relations.

I would like to note that while preparing the report I was planning on going and taking the opportunity to hear what the officials in Moscow had to say. Unfortunately, my fact-finding mission did not take place, since my delegation was not let into Russia. We can only regret that now, 19 of our colleagues find themselves on the illegal Russian visa ban list. This is not only disrespect to the European Parliament but an insult to the EU as a whole, which bases international cooperation on transparent and peaceful dialogue.

When preparing for this speech I looked for inspiration from Churchill’s Fulton speech. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom saw the dramatic geopolitical changes that were arriving in his wake when he said these words: ‘If the Western Democracies stand together in strict adherence to the principles [of the United Nations Charter, their influence] will be immense and no one is likely to molest them. If however they become divided or falter in their duty and if these all-important years are allowed to slip away, then indeed catastrophe may overwhelm us all’.

When everyone in Europe was tired after the war, it took great courage to name the situation, as it was – if not acted upon – possibly as dangerous as the situation created by the Nazis. There are countries and people who would say the same thing about today’s situation. Europe’s post-war peace order is challenged by the occupation of Crimea and continuing Russian military aggression in Ukraine. There should be no fear in naming it that way. But the European continent had not only the Cold War: it also had the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Singing Revolution, which was one of the reasons that made my speech here today possible. It all happened in a semi-peaceful way. It seemed that history has indeed come to an end: democracy and the rule of law are prevailing over aggression and unlawfulness and war. Further EU enlargement is an excellent example of peaceful European order.

So one could say that there is a solution, there is a possibility of building a peaceful cohabitation with all the countries on the continent. But at this moment it is not Europe which will decide it.

The European Union adheres to the very clear principles of the rule of law, transparency and self-determination, therefore numerous different formats and initiatives were offered to Russia in order to usher the Russian people to the path of democracy and reform. The European Union was even generous in offering strategic partnership or ‘common spaces’ initiatives, but the respect of human rights and democratic principles kept on deteriorating in Russia. Europe even turned a blind eye when people in the Kremlin were breaking the established order of international treaties. Europe did not do much when the Russian troops entered Georgia’s territory and remained silent during the establishment of the Gazprom monopoly in certain countries and during trade wars when Russia would close down its borders under political pretexts.

But Europe is not there any longer. After the illegal annexation of Crimea, after the MH17 plane was shot down from the sky, Europe took Churchill’s advice and spoke out, and it will speak again, I am sure. There will be more and tougher sanctions if the international obligations set out in two Minsk agreements are not respected and if more people die because the guns keep flowing through the unprotected border.

Europe will speak out when the rules of the internal market are challenged by uncompromising monopoly companies which long thought that corrupt deals would keep them above the law. Europe will say a word or two when the political parties that disagree with the very principles of European Union, like democracy, receive funding from financial institutions linked to the people running the Kremlin.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the quality and depth of EU-Russia relations is a determining factor for the stability and prosperity of our continent. Our partnership was severely impacted last year by the illegal annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Donbas. But Russia is also an important economic counterpart and an essential partner for the solution of many pressing international problems. This is the backdrop of the report you are debating today. I appreciate your efforts, in particular those of Mr Landsbergis, which have made this report a very important contribution to the debate on how best to shape relations with Russia. Let me take up the key political messages in your report.

First comes the issue of unity. I fully share your conviction that our Russia policy is strong and successful only if it enjoys the unanimous support of all 28 EU Member States. The EU must continue acting on the basis of a broad and principled consensus on the Ukraine conflict and on its relations with Russia. This does not mean reducing our policy to the lowest common denominator. Quite the contrary – it means pursuing a comprehensive approach, responding to immediate concerns but with strategic patience and vision.

The work of this House is an example of EU unity. I understand that the draft report has been adopted by an overwhelming majority in the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET). I hope that the plenary vote will also reflect this, in order to send a clear political message about the views of European citizens.

Second, there is the issue of balance. Your report contains strong criticism of Moscow’s actions such as the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, its destabilising policy in Donbas, the multiplication of hybrid threats throughout Europe and the shrinking space for Russian civil society and media. At the same time, you are equally strong in stating the EU’s readiness to develop a constructive, predictable and mutually-beneficial relationship with Russia.

Balance is at the core of our approach to the Ukraine conflict. On the one hand, we have been firm and decided to adopt sanctions. On the other hand, EU Member States and EU institutions are engaged in the search for a political solution to the conflict. Work is done in the Normandy format and in trilateral talks on trade and energy. The EU provides substantial assistance which is clearly conditional on real reforms in Ukraine. These efforts will continue unabated.

Such a balanced approach should be followed between the EU and Russia. Dialogue and engagement should go together with resilience and firmness. We cannot turn a blind eye to security risks in sectors like energy, cyber-space, civil aviation or the impact of propaganda on our democracies. We must enhance our capacity for resilience and clearly state our red lines.

At the same time, there is an imperative for cooperation based on the inter-dependence and complementarity of our economies, on historical and cultural traditions and on our capacity to make a difference when we act jointly. We should more often exercise our responsibilities as actors in a complex world of global and regional challenges. Based on mutual respect, the EU should remain ready to develop a new, positive relationship.

Thirdly, the Commission shares your commitment to a comprehensive approach to our Russia policy. As High Representative Mogherini said in this Chamber at the start of her term last autumn, we believe that a successful foreign policy depends on success in internal EU policies fully committed to this principle. The work by High Representative Mogherini, with Commissioners Šefčovič and Malmström, on the trilateral talks on energy and trade proves we are on the right track.

Fourth, let me stress the issue of integrity. The EU stands firmly behind democratic values, respect for human rights and a rules-based international order and will continue to do so. These fundamental principles underpin our commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. They are the basis for our call on Russia to respect its international commitments, be this in the field of governance, security or international trade. We have maintained our support and assistance for civil society organisations and human rights projects in an increasingly challenging environment. Despite the deterioration of relations, we will enhance people-to-people contacts in all fields – from education, culture and research to cross-border cooperation.

Let me finish with a crucial point in your report – perspective. I see that the very first plea you make in your report is for the EU to develop a contingency plan for the short term, as well as a comprehensive plan for long-term relations with Russia and with the EU’s East European partners. I share the reasoning behind this call. Events in Crimea and Donbas should not prevent us from taking a broader horizon for identifying the challenges we face and the opportunities to be exploited.

EU Foreign Ministers agreed back in January to continue dialogue with Russia at expert level on the resolution of regional conflicts and tackling global challenges. Further engagement with Russia should be gradual, with Russia’s fulfilment of commitments under international law and steps for rebuilding mutual trust.

For this to develop, we need a long-term vision – a strategy that we must develop further. To achieve a vision for EU-Russia relations that can embrace all scenarios, our reflection should already start now.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, what is most important in our relations with Russia is to be consistent and united. Relations between us and Russia have never been as bad as they are now. They are a result of the aggressive policies of President Putin. But let us not forget that there is a Russia other than the one we are dealing with now – the Russia of Sakharov, Politkovskaya, Nemtsov, Kovalyov and Memorial, and of all those Russians, of that great nation, who have been honoured with our Sakharov Prize.

Russia is not fulfilling the Minsk agreement, and this is at the core of our relationship with and attitude to Russia. The position recently taken at the G7 Summit – that the G7 is in favour of continuing the sanctions and, if the need arises, increasing them – is the best answer to Russia’s present aggressive policy. Contrary to what some say, the sanctions which we are applying hurt the core of Russia’s economy. Thus they should bring a result, despite the fact that, so far, they have not changed the course of the Kremlin’s policy.

Russia has recently blacklisted 89 people from the European Union, including 19 Members of the European Parliament. This is a very hostile act because it attacks the European elite in its relations with Russia.

  Liisa Jaakonsaari, S&D-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, Euroopan unioni on saanut Nobelin rauhanpalkinnon tunnustukseksi rauhan ja vakauden edistämiseksi maanosassamme. Tämä mielestäni velvoittaa meidät nyt suhteissamme Venäjään, vaikka se joskus tuntuu tosi vaikealta. Sillä ilman Venäjää ei Euroopassa ole rauhaa, kuten idänpolitiikan veteraani Helmut Schmidt on sanonut. Ja kuten komissaarikin totesi: "Mitä yhtenäisempi EU on suhteessa Venäjään, sen varmemmin voimme edistää eurooppalaisia ydinarvoja: demokratiaa, oikeusvaltion periaatteita, ihmisoikeuksia."

Sosiaalidemokraattinen ryhmä haluaa vauhdittaa dialogia ja diplomatiaa. Myös parlamentaarinen diplomatia on tärkeää. Tuo Venäjän julkaisema musta lista useista Euroopan poliitikoista ja parlamentin jäsenistä oli huonosti harkittu ja vain syvensi epäluottamuksen kierrettä.

Nyt käsittelyssä olevaan Landsbergisin mietintöön oma ryhmäni on vaikuttanut positiivisesti. Venäjän on pantava toimeen Minskin sopimus ja kunnioitettava Ukrainan ja muiden naapuriensa oikeutta tehdä poliittisia valintoja. Krimin liittäminen on kansainvälisen oikeuden vastaista, eikä sitä saa koskaan hyväksyä eikä tunnustaa.

Mutta kaikesta tästä huolimatta ovet on avattava dialogille ja tavoitteena on oltava uuden luottamuksen rakentaminen. Yhteisiä intressejä ja haasteita ovat ilmastonmuutoksen torjunta, terrorismi, rajatylittävä yhteistyö, ja esimerkiksi pohjoisen ulottuvuuden politiikka olkoon esimerkkinä siitä, kuinka arkinen yhteistyö on jo tällä hetkellä käynnissä.

On aivan oikein tuomita, niin kuin mietinnössä tehdään, Venäjän median ja internetin vapauden rajoitukset, ja meidän on syytä olla huolestuneita myös siitä, että Venäjä tukee äärioikeiston toimintaa EU:n jäsenvaltioissa. Sosiaalidemokraattinen ryhmä kehottaa ulkosuhdehallintoa, ja toivottavasti komissaari Jourová vie tämän viestin eteenpäin, että jäsenvaltiot ja ulkosuhdehallinto ottaisivat esille homofobiaa ja HLBT-henkilöihin kohdistuvaa väkivaltaa koskevat kysymykset.

Venäjä-politiikassa on todellakin oltava periksiantamaton, mutta samalla on rakennettava uutta luottamusta. Maailmanlaajuiset ongelmat eivät ratkea ilman Euroopan ja Venäjän yhteistyötä. Me olemme myös sidotut maantieteellä toisiimme. Ja tämä on hyvä lähtökohta, kun alamme toteuttaa meille Nobelin rauhanpalkinnon antamaa suurta tehtävää.

(Puhuja suostui vastaamaan sinisen kortin kysymykseen (työjärjestyksen 162 artiklan 8 kohta).

  Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski (ECR), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Panie Przewodniczący! Z wieloma poglądami, które tu wypowiedziała posłanka Jaakonsaari, zgadzam się, ale brakowało mi jasności i zdecydowania, „postawienia kropki nad i”. Czy socjaliści są zdecydowanie za podtrzymaniem sankcji wobec Rosji, bo to jest głównym przedmiotem decyzji Unii Europejskiej? Czy możemy usłyszeć jednoznaczne „tak” dla podtrzymania sankcji?

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D), Vastaus sinisen kortin kysymykseen. – Ehdottomasti sanktiot ovat tarpeellisia, ja kuten rouva Merkel on vastikään esittänyt, niitä on mahdollista myös koventaa. Mutta on tärkeää koko ajan huolehtia siitä, että avataan myös uusia visioita yhteistyön suhteen. Aivan kuin komissaari tuossa sanoi, jos me vain puolin ja toisin luettelemme toistemme synnit mietinnöstä toiseen avaamatta mitään uutta, tämä kierre pahenee. Sitä en haluaisi suinkaan tapahtuvan.

  Anna Elżbieta Fotyga, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Komisarz! Przede wszystkim chciałam wyrazić ubolewanie, że dzisiaj na sali nie ma z nami wysokiej przedstawiciel Federiki Mogherini. To jest ważna debata, to jest niezwykle ważna debata. Rozmawiamy o rzeczywiście zmieniającym się porządku międzynarodowym i Rosji, która w tym zmieniającym się porządku kosztem naszego regionu – również pani regionu, Pani Komisarz – próbuje odzyskać znaczące wpływy w świecie. To się odbywa metodą agresywnej polityki. Konsekwencje tej agresywnej polityki zostały sprawdzone również przez rządy, których miałam zaszczyt być członkinią, bo chcieliśmy utrzymywać, tak jak pani, dialog z Rosją. Chcieliśmy, żeby ten dialog był przyjazny.

Trzeba jednak zdawać sobie sprawę, z jaką polityką Rosji mamy w tej chwili do czynienia. Że jest to kraj, który w swoich doktrynach – zarówno w doktrynie wojskowej, jak i w koncepcji polityki zagranicznej – zakłada uderzenia w bliskim sąsiedztwie w przypadku, jeżeli uzna, że naruszane są interesy rosyjskie. A niestety dzieje się tak, że Rosja uznaje naruszanie swoich interesów niemal w każdej sprawie, najprostszej sprawie. I to nie jest tak, że ramy naszej debaty są zarysowane w obrębie dialogu, interesów gospodarczych i zbieżności kultury naszych państw. Nie tylko, bo mamy do czynienia z rzeczywiście poważnym zagrożeniem, również na naszych terytoriach, wojną hybrydową, zbrojeniami w Kaliningradzie, naruszaniem międzynarodowego porządku prawnego. Mamy do czynienia z naszym brakiem decyzji. Niezbędne jest utrzymanie sankcji.

(Mówczyni zgodziła się odpowiedzieć na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki (art. 162 ust. 8 Regulaminu))

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D), sinisen kortin kysymys. – Arvoisa puhemies, meillä varmasti kaikilla on illuusioton kuva Venäjästä ja siitä, mitä tällä hetkellä tapahtuu, mutta uskotteko lainkaan siihen, että on mahdollista kehittää visioyhteistyötä, re-engagement. Onko se ylipäätään Teidän ajattelussanne mahdollista?

  Anna Elżbieta Fotyga (ECR). – (Interpretation of the blue card question was not available) I just wanted to listen to her question, certainly. I just replied by intuition to one phrase: ‘re-engagement’. But it would be better to listen to the whole question.

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D), blue-card question. – I am sure that we all have the Russian picture – we have no illusions – but I want to ask whether you agree with the Commissioner that there should be, and could be, a kind of vision developed looking towards the re-engagement of Europe with Russia.

  Anna Elżbieta Fotyga (ECR), blue-card answer. – Madam, surely it is extremely necessary to develop a clear vision. In my opinion, Russia is now backing off any policy of re—engagement. Good examples of this are Russia’s decree banning transport to and from Afghanistan, and its breaking—off of talks with the Minsk Contact Group led by Heidi Tagliavini.

  Johannes Cornelis van Baalen, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to compliment Gabrielius Landsbergis, who has made a resolution which combined all the credible forces in this Parliament. So thank you for doing so, Mr Landsbergis.

The basis will be the return of international law by Russia: that is, of course, that Crimea should be given back to Ukraine and those who signed the Budapest Memorandum should be helping in this and should not be absent. Secondly, Russia should stop its involvement in eastern Ukraine and adhere to the Minsk Agreement – and only facts on the ground can change our position towards Russia.

It is a two-track approach: it means being hard on Putin but willing to cooperate with Russian civil society, because many Russians want peace as well. It will take a lot of time. In this Parliament we always want things to happen overnight, but Putin has a long-term strategy of crippling Russia’s neighbours. So also to return Putin, or a successor, to international law will take time, and we have to be tough. We should not give in – let time do its work. There are no speedy resolutions, no business as usual.

To conclude, there is that blacklist. But I think it is a list of honour. It is an honour to be on a list with so many colleagues who are pro-Ukrainian but who also love the Russian people and want to get Russia back on track. So again, to be on that list is an honour and a pleasure. We will not change anything. Putin has to change. That’s it.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Gilles Lebreton (NI), question "carton bleu". – Monsieur van Baalen, je vous remercie d'accepter ma question. J'ai peur de ne pas faire partie, hélas, de ce que vous appelez les forces crédibles du Parlement européen puisque je suis moins sévère que la plupart des députés de ce Parlement à l'égard de la Russie.

Vous avez tout de même dit une chose très intéressante: vous avez souligné qu'il fallait se départir d'une attitude totalement négative vis-à-vis de la Russie et qu'il fallait coopérer avec la société civile russe. Vous avez raison d'avoir souci de cette coopération. Mais pensez-vous qu'on puisse coopérer avec la société civile russe si on pratique un embargo?

  Johannes Cornelis van Baalen (ALDE), blue-card answer. – Yes, this is of course possible. We will invite people, students, people of goodwill – they are welcome – and normally people of goodwill who are on this list also want to go to Russia to speak to their counterparts. That is goodwill, but it seems that goodwill is not much appreciated in Moscow, unfortunately.

  Helmut Scholz, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Vieles liegt in den Beziehungen mit Russland seit Jahren im Argen und türmt sich immer höher auf: Um diesen Prozess wieder umzudrehen, brauchen wir Vertrauensbildung anstelle von Selbstgerechtigkeit und Großmachtgehabe, brauchen wir Empathie anstelle von Emotionen oder politischen Nebelkerzen, brauchen wir ein deutliches Mehr an gemeinsamer Diskussion und vor allem Kooperation anstelle weiterer Eskalationsspiralen oder Ausgrenzung. Nur wer sich rechthaberisch oder von egoistischen Interessen getrieben durchsetzen will, sei es politisch oder wirtschaftlich, tritt auf das Gaspedal der Eskalation oder jenes der Übervorteilung, beiderseits.

Das wären wichtige politische Axiome, an denen sich ein Bericht zur Frage, wie es weitergehen soll in den Beziehungen mit Russland, messen müsste. Genau das macht der Berichterstatter aber nicht. Er entzieht sich zugleich der Frage, warum die Beziehungen mit Russland sich dort befinden, wo sie sich befinden, und was dieser Zustand mit unserer Politik zu tun hat.

Wo die Analyse fehlt, kann aber auch keine, auch keine gemeinsame, Strategie entstehen, da bleibt dann nur der Raum für das Spiel über Bande am Vorabend des nächsten EU-Gipfels, der ja die von den Mitgliedstaaten immer offener hinterfragten Sanktionen gegen Russland weiter durchwinken soll.

Der Bericht sollte offensichtlich auch nicht nach einem Ausweg aus der Sackgasse der Beziehungen suchen, sondern Regierungen disziplinieren und gleichzeitig auch noch mal Prozesse der Integration vorantreiben helfen. In diesem Sinne ist der von den Diensten des Parlaments bei der Ablehnung von Änderungsanträgen getroffenen Einschätzung zuzustimmen. Es handelt sich bei dem Bericht leider um keinen strategischen INI-Bericht, denn wir brauchen einen Strategiewechsel

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)

  Rebecca Harms, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr verehrte Kollegen! Herr Kollege Scholz, auch Sie gehören ja zu denen, die in Deutschland in den letzten Tagen rund um den Gipfel von Elmau immer wieder die Frage gestellt haben, ob die europäische Politik gegenüber Russland, die internationale Politik der demokratischen Regierungen, nicht eine Beleidigung für Präsident Putin sei. Damit wird mit einem psychologischen Argument auf das reagiert, was die Europäische Union bisher getan hat.

Was haben wir getan und warum haben wir das getan? In der Ukraine ist seit dem letzten Frühjahr wirklich etwas Katastrophales passiert. Das Land hat nicht nur einen großen Teil seines Territoriums verloren – ein großer Teil seiner industriellen Basis ist zerstört worden –, sondern es sind in diesem Land weit mehr als 5000 Menschen gestorben, es sind Zehntausende von Menschen verletzt und verkrüppelt, wir haben Tausende von traumatisierten Kindern, die monatelang in den Kellern von Donezk und Luhansk gelebt haben.

Obwohl auch ein Flugzeug, in dem viele Westeuropäer gesessen haben, abgeschossen worden ist, haben wir als Europäische Union nicht militärisch und als Großmacht reagiert, sondern wir haben mit Wirtschaftssanktionen, mit Diplomatie und mit Verhandlungen reagiert. Und das ist für die Europäische Union und ihr Selbstverständnis ungeheuer wichtig, das ist eine Veränderung zum Positiven und eine Veränderung, die eben der Idee der Soft Power gerecht wird und überhaupt nichts mit diesen Großmachtideen zu tun hat, die Sie da eben beschrieben haben.

Das Abkommen von Minsk ist bisher das einzige, was relevant erreicht worden ist, gestützt auf diese anderen außenpolitischen Ideen der Europäischen Union. Und deswegen – um in diesem Versuch, dem Osten der Ukraine wieder zum Frieden zu verhelfen, weiterzukommen – ist für mich in diesem Bericht von Herrn Landsbergis das Allerwichtigste, dass wir die Sanktionen nicht aufgeben, sondern dass wir sie nachvollziehbar, ja zuverlässig für alle Beteiligten, an die Umsetzung des Minsker Abkommens binden. Und an der Stelle muss eben der nächste Gipfel auch ganz konsequent sein. Es muss nicht immer wieder darum gehen, ob wir mehr oder weniger Sanktionen brauchen. Es muss darum gehen, dass wir mit dieser Idee der Wirtschaftssanktionen, die eine Alternative zu einer militärischen Eskalation sind, unsere Diplomatie und unsere Verhandlungen stärken.

Meine Damen und Herren, ich glaube, dass wir allerdings auch über uns und große andere Veränderungen reden müssten. Ich denke, dass Donald Tusk Recht hatte, als er die Energieunion als eine Antwort auf die Abhängigkeit von Russland vorgeschlagen hatte. Allerdings ist das, was bisher vorliegt, nicht der große strategische Entwurf, der uns unabhängiger machen könnte. Dafür müssten wir

(Der Präsident entzieht der Rednerin das Wort.)

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, un anno di lavoro qui e mi convinco sempre di più che ciò che uccide non solo l'immagine, ma anche l'efficacia della nostra azione, è l'applicazione opportunistica e selettiva di principi e valori europei in politica estera, non in funzione della realtà, quanto invece di interessi geopolitici, realpolitik e altri interessi da raggiungere. Questa relazione cita molte volte le violazioni dei principi democratici, dello Stato di diritto e i diritti umani in Russia. Sottolinea la corruzione e ancora la messa in pericolo della libertà di espressione e informazione del paese.

Chiaramente, molte di queste criticità sono assolutamente vere, mi chiedo però come mai, per anni, sono state sempre ignorate e volutamente dimenticate, quando appunto le relazioni con la Russia facevano tanto comodo a molti dei nostri Stati, che ricordo anche tante belle foto di nostri ex primi ministri e presidenti a braccetto con Putin? Mi chiedo come mai, si dimentichi di sottolineare che quanto a corruzione e discriminazione su alcune categorie della popolazione, l'Ucraina di oggi non è messa certo meglio della Russia? Ed è accaduto peraltro questo fenomeno, anche con la Libia e potrei citare Gheddafi, potrei citare anche tanti altri casi.

E non vedo l'ora di lavorare poi insieme a voi, sul futuro rapporto sulle nostre relazioni con la Cina perché vorrò proprio vedere se ci saranno tutti questi grandi paladini sulla difesa dei diritti umani e della democrazia, quando parlerò di Tibet, di Iuguri, di pena di morte e di violazioni sistematiche della democrazia dei diritti umani nel gigante asiatico. Voglio vedere se ci saranno tutti questi difensori della condizionalità, dell'applicazione stretta della condizionalità o se si continuerà invece in quel caso il business as usual.

La Cina che poi è uno dei grandi beneficiari della nostra politica relativa, visto che al posto di cercare equilibrio, abbiamo spinto tra le sue braccia proprio la Russia, suo tradizionale avversario e ora invece sempre più stretto partner energetico – vedi progetti Western and Eastern Route – economico, militare e politico.

E a proposito di energia, volevo dire al relatore che quando si parla di resilienza europea, vorrei ricordargli appunto che l'unica possibile si fonda non tanto sulla diversificazione, ma su un vero new deal delle energie rinnovabili, che garantirebbe la nostra indipendenza energetica.

Io sarò sempre dalla parte di chi vuole una vera condizionalità, sempre, e non da quella di chi ha vuoti di memoria a comando, né tantomeno da quella di chi cerca pretesti per una folle corsa agli armamenti, sottraendo risorse indispensabili ai nostri popoli, specie quelli mediterranei, oggi in ginocchio per colpa della crisi e delle sanzioni che più che colpire la Russia stanno colpendo noi stessi.

La vera guerra è quella più pericolosa l'abbiamo in casa nostra: la guerra contro la povertà e l'emarginazione.

(L'oratore accetta di rispondere a una domanda "cartellino blu", articolo 162, paragrafo 8, del regolamento)

  Maria Grapini (S&D), Întrebare adresată conform procedurii „cartonașului albastru”. – Domnule Castaldo, am înțeles că dumneavoastră criticați raportul. Problema pe care ați ridicat-o și eu nu am văzut-o în raport, vorbiți că Uniunea Europeană ar încuraja cursa înarmărilor. Comisarul a explicat de ce trebuie ca Uniunea Europeană să aibă o politică comună și să dea dovadă de viziune.

Cum doriți dumneavoastră să fie relațiile între Uniunea Europeană și Rusia pentru a nu ajunge la conflicte?

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD), Risposta a una domanda "cartellino blu". – Gentile collega, grazie per la domanda. Io non critico tanto la relazione in sé, io critico l'approccio generale che l'Unione europea sta tenendo nelle sue relazioni estere. Secondo me, non c'è altra soluzione che una soluzione diplomatica e basata sul soft power. Ma mi pare che qui noi lo diciamo all'interno di questa relazione, ma le nostre azioni non vanno assolutamente in quel passo e molti dei nostri Stati membri non fanno altro che chiedere un maggiore rafforzamento della spesa budgetaria nell'ambito della NATO e un maggiore impegno dal punto di vista militare. Secondo me non si va nell'interesse dei nostri popoli e non si va sicuramente nell'interesse...

(Il Presidente ritira la parola all'oratore)

  Aymeric Chauprade (NI). – Monsieur le Président, malheureusement, le travail de notre collègue Landsbergis nous offre un nouvel exemple de l'aveuglement de cette assemblée face aux responsabilités dans la crise ukrainienne. Le catalogue des contre-vérités est impressionnant et je n'en donnerai ici qu'un extrait.

Tout d'abord, la crise géorgienne de 2008 dont la responsabilité est attribuée à la Russie, alors qu'en 2009 le rapport de la commission internationale indépendante, dirigée par la diplomate suisse Mme Heidi Tagliavini et financée par l'Union européenne, établissait que la Géorgie était responsable du conflit. De même, il a échappé à M. Landsbergis que le rattachement de la Crimée et de Sébastopol à la Russie était l'expression démocratique d'une écrasante majorité. Je passe sur la partialité du rapport quant au non-respect des accords de Minsk. Les observateurs impartiaux s'accordent à dire que des violations existent des deux côtés.

Quand on lit un texte aussi peu soucieux de vérité, on ne peut que s'inquiéter de l'emprise du parti de la guerre ici, parti de la guerre qui piétine sans relâche tout espoir de dialogue avec la Russie. J'appelle donc les partisans de la paix en Europe et du dialogue avec la Russie à faire échec à ce texte, qui est dangereux.

(L'orateur accepte de répondre à une question "carton bleu" (article 162, paragraphe 8, du règlement))

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE), zilās kartītes jautājums. – Es vēlētos jautāt savam Francijas kolēģim, vai viņš uzskata, ka basku separātistu kustība arī ir demokrātiska basku tautības izpausme, un vai viņš atbalstītu Basku reģiona atdalīšanos no Francijas.

  Aymeric Chauprade (NI), réponse "carton bleu". – Monsieur le Président, à ma connaissance, il n'y a pas d'expression populaire du mouvement basque, il n'y a pas de majorité, il n'y a pas de volonté, au Pays basque, d'accéder à l'indépendance, du côté français en tout cas. Par conséquent, ce sujet n'a pas lieu d'être. Il faut comparer ce qui est comparable: le cas de la Crimée n'est absolument pas comparable à la situation de la partie basque de la France.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, je voudrais tout d'abord féliciter mon collègue Landsbergis pour la qualité de son rapport.

Effectivement, nous connaissons aujourd'hui une crise majeure dans nos relations avec la Russie, car celle-ci n'est plus, comme nous le disions, un partenaire stratégique. Il s'agit d'un pouvoir très agressif, tant au niveau de sa politique intérieure que sur le plan de ses relations extérieures.

Au niveau intérieur, nous savons qu'il n'est plus possible de parler d'un régime démocratique. Il s'agit d'un régime confisqué par un parti et personnalisé, ce qui crée un énorme problème dans le dialogue politique. Dialogue qui, d'ailleurs, n'est maintenant plus possible. Nous sommes loin des échanges directs et sincères avec cette partie du monde.

Je voudrais dire ensuite qu'il devient tout de même insupportable d'entendre les voix de nos collègues qui reproduisent tels quels les messages de Moscou. On se croirait dans les années 80 avec ce faux discours pacifiste, tenu justement par les gens qui sont – dans certains cas – payés directement par Moscou. C'est quand même inacceptable. À cela, l'Union européenne doit répondre par des sanctions très dures afin de faire taire les voix de ces inconscients qui nous parlent depuis des pays stipendiés par Moscou. J'en ai marre.

(L'orateur accepte de répondre à une question "carton bleu" (article 162, paragraphe 8, du règlement)

  Bill Etheridge (EFDD), blue-card question. – I heard your speech, and there is a lot of huff and puff today about what should be done. Do you agree that there is a very limited range of things that the EU mouse can do to affect the Russian bear? And when you talk in this harsh rhetoric and tough way, you need to be very careful about what might lead from it – and this is from someone who, I can assure you, is in the pay of nobody whatsoever except the British taxpayer.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE), réponse "carton bleu". – Monsieur le Président, je pense que la seule solution qui s'offre à nous maintenant est d'aider les Ukrainiens à lutter contre la Russie, car c'est une guerre qui a lieu sur leur territoire. Nous devons donc utiliser tous les moyens dont nous disposons, au niveau des États membres et au niveau de l'Union, pour aider ces gens à se défendre. Il s'agit d'un droit de défense que les Anglais aimaient autrefois. Maintenant qu'ils sont eux-mêmes en guerre contre l'Europe, ils inventent n'importe quoi pour briser cette action.

  Richard Howitt (S&D). – Mr President, my group hopes that the resolution we adopt on Russia will demonstrate European resolve to be united in expressing our concerns about the internal situation in Russia and the deterioration in our relations with Russia, but united, too, in sending a signal that we want to find a path to return to long-term dialogue and cooperation.

This report is not just about what happened in Ukraine, but some of the spirit of Minsk – which Members across this Chamber have said they want to see upheld – should also be demonstrated in how Members conduct the debate and in the content of it. That is a comment aimed at those who seek simply to criticise Russia and ramp up the rhetoric, but it includes those from Syriza in Greece, to the Front National in France, to the United Kingdom Independence Party, whose almost uncritical support for the current position of Russia is deeply dangerous.

There can be no business as usual with Russia. It is right that Russia was excluded from the G7 meeting this week, because its politicians and people need to understand that if you break international law, you cannot expect to contribute to international law-making.

I have to say that I join the condemnation of the blacklisting of 89 EU politicians. I am worried by the tit-for-tat inclusion of travel bans on politicians on both sides. I would like to see politicians able to travel and to meet together. That is not to deny that we have serious disagreements, but because the only way such disagreements could ever be resolved is through dialogue and negotiation and, with due courtesy, I make the same point to President Schulz. That is why Russia’s politicians and media should also notice paragraph 4 of the report, where we explicitly say our objective is a return to constructive dialogue and that we set conditions for that, which are both realistic and achievable.

It is why we identify in this report not simply the differences but also the shared interests we have with Russia. I have just come back from Iran, where the Russian offer on nuclear enrichment could be a key part of securing a nuclear deal, but where Russian exportation of missiles to Iran equally threatens a very different future. In Syria, too, we want Russia to engage and not to block international diplomacy, which recognises the overriding need to end violence and to hold to account those responsible for that violence.

If Russia does not want to be seen as a military aggressor and as anti-democratic, it must not simply align itself with others who clearly are, and if Russia wants to be treated with respect and as a partner – and I reiterate that we would like to return to a situation where that is our relationship – then Russia could take a strong step towards that by genuinely engaging with us and other international partners on Iran and Syria, and in other international conflicts, to demonstrate that cooperation is possible and that interests are indeed shared.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Krystyna Łybacka (S&D), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Panie Pośle! Zgadzam się z panem, że powinniśmy pamiętać o kontaktach międzyludzkich. Powinniśmy pamiętać, dlatego że władza przemija, natomiast naród trwa. Powinniśmy te dwa pojęcia rozgraniczyć. Ale czy zgodzi się pan z poglądem, że w tych kontaktach międzyludzkich szczególnie ważne są kontakty między młodzieżą, aby wychowywać młodzież w duchu wzajemnego zrozumienia, tolerancji i wartości bliskich Unii?

  Richard Howitt (S&D), blue-card answer. – Yes, I do think it is incredibly important to support civil society exchanges, which is why I express concern at the law on so—called ‘undesirable organisations’ and would make the point that the NGOs that Russia is targeting are not a threat to its constitution, security or defence. They are part of the solution; they are not part of the problem.

  Mark Demesmaeker (ECR). – Samen met enkele andere collega's kreeg ook ik een inreisverbod voor Rusland in de bus. Het toont voor mij de hopeloosheid en het cynisme aan van een regime dat meer en meer gedreven wordt door revanchisme. Poetin ziet zichzelf als de voogd van "tientallen miljoenen" Russen buiten de grenzen, die hij moet beschermen. Die idee van de 'Ruskiy Mir' levert hem ongeziene populariteit op, maar dient eigenlijk vooral om de machtspositie van zijn politieke en financiële elite veilig te stellen. Ik citeer uit het interessante Chatham House Report 'The Russian Challenge", dat enkele dagen geleden verscheen: "Dit Rusland kan niet geïntegreerd worden in een Europa dat op internationale regels is gebaseerd, tenzij er een fundamentele koerswijziging komt in Moskou. Die verandering moet van binnenin komen!"

Een accent in het rapport Landsbergis dat ík wil benadrukken, is daarom dat het belangrijk is dat de EU de communicatielijnen met de Russische samenleving open houdt en verbetert, dat de EU duidelijke signalen geeft aan al wie verantwoordelijkheid draagt in Rusland, dat de weg van Poetin een doodlopende straat is, maar dat wij klaar staan om opnieuw een sterke partner te worden als de omstandigheden veranderen.

  Paavo Väyrynen (ALDE). – Arvoisa puhemies, nykyiset vaikeudet EU:n ja Venäjän välisissä suhteissa johtuvat perimmiltään geopoliittisen vastakkainasettelun voimistumisesta Euroopassa. Ukrainassa se johti sisällissotaan ja kansainväliseen kriisiin, jonka seurauksena EU ja Venäjä ovat jopa asettaneet toisilleen pakotteita.

Ratkaisua EU:n ja Venäjän välisten suhteitten parantamiseen on haettava Ukrainan kriisin rauhanomaisesta ratkaisemisesta. Minsk 2 -sopimus on pantava täytäntöön. Venäjän on toteutettava se omalta osaltaan ja vaikutettava siihen, että myös separatistit noudattavat sopimusta. EU:n tulee puolestaan vaikuttaa Ukrainan hallitukseen sopimuksen täytäntöön panemiseksi kaikilta osin. Ratkaisevassa asemassa ovat tämän vuoden loppuun mennessä voimaan astuva Ukrainan uusi perustuslaki, jonka avainkohta on vallan hajauttaminen, sekä toisaalta pysyvä lainsäädäntö Donetskin ja Luhanskin eräiden alueiden erityisasemasta. EU:n tulee muutoinkin tehdä omalta osaltaan kaikkensa, että EU:n ja Venäjän suhteissa päästään vihanpidosta jälleen rakentavaan yhteistyöhön.

(Puhuja suostui vastaamaan sinisen kortin kysymykseen (työjärjestyksen 162 artiklan 8 kohta).

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D), blue-card question. – Mr Väyrynen, you are from Finland – Finland, which has a long history of relations with Russia, not always very happy. Do you not think that we should have a common position and a real common foreign and security policy of the European Union countries towards Russia – more solidarity among us towards Russia? Otherwise it is going to be difficult with peaceful means alone to make Russia comply with international law.

  Paavo Väyrynen (ALDE), Vastaus sinisen kortin kysymykseen. – Arvoisa puhemies, olen samaa mieltä siitä, että meillä täytyy olla yhteinen politiikka suhteessa Venäjään. Toisaalta me kaikki tiedämme, että jäsenvaltioissa on erilaisia näkemyksiä, myös täällä parlamentissa, ja meidän täytyy neuvotella siitä, mikä on se yhteinen linja, mitä me yhdessä toteutamme. Minusta on erittäin tärkeää, että unioni kaikin voimin pyrkii edistämään rauhanomaisia ratkaisuja ja pyrkii kehittämään rauhanomaista yhteistyötä Venäjän kanssa ja myös muiden maiden kanssa.

  Tamás Meszerics (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, let me also congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Landsbergis, who has worked hard to find common ground. He has secured a very large support base for this report, and deservedly so. I would like to encourage all our colleagues in this House to support the very same report in the vote. The message is entirely clear, and many of our colleagues have already mentioned it: we need to maintain unity and uphold sanctions as long as Russia is not changing its policies both externally and internally.

The message is clear, but we should also emphasise that we have no problem with the Russian people. We would like to have Russian society as partners; we would like to engage with anyone and everyone in Russia who finds an interest and a clear motivation in working together with us. What we have a problem with is Russia’s current leadership, and especially the way they use state power, both internally and externally. This is something we simply cannot condone and go back to business as usual. The Russian leadership very often relies on the concept of sovereignty. At some point they even called their system a ‘sovereign democracy’. I shall not go into how far it is a democracy now, but we should be fully aware that sovereignty has its limits.

One of the limits of sovereignty is the sovereignty of your neighbour, and this has been violated by Russia in the last year and a half. The other obvious limit on sovereignty is international law and international norms. Until and unless Russia goes back to endorsing the international norms and international law relevant to its behaviour, there is no room for re-engagement. However, once that happens, we need to find a way to live together peacefully in this region with Russia. But the ball is in Russia’s court.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Steven Woolfe (EFDD), blue-card question. – The motivation for sanctions, which you support, is to impose hardship in order to change behaviour. The behaviour that the EU wishes to change is to project its own preferences on Russia rather than Russia’s preferences on its own people. Do you therefore believe that you or the EU have omniscience on democratic values and principles, that you can impose them on any country across the world?

  Tamás Meszerics (Verts/ALE), blue-card answer. – First of all, let me remind you that the way we arrived at sanctions was fully democratic. Nobody in this House has ever questioned whether the sanctions the European Union imposed on Russia were democratically arrived at.

Secondly, what we would want to change is Russia’s behaviour in areas where it does not have sovereign powers to decide the fate of people, including Donbas, eastern Ukraine and Crimea. This is where we would like to see change, and I think that is just right.

  James Carver (EFDD). – Mr President, the tragedy of this foolhardy quest, in the guise of increasingly overt expansion of EU neo-imperialism whilst calling for a greater of role for the European Union on the international stage, underlines exactly how you misjudge the shift in global power. Your evangelical desire to become a so-called ‘strategic player’ in world affairs leads you to seem oblivious to the need to engage in a real diplomatic approach to secure better lasting EU-Russia relations. This extension of the EU’s tentacles eastwards underlines how your most significant foreign policy of recent times has turned out to be an utter failure. You completely underestimated Russia’s resolve in Eastern Europe and now the citizens of eastern Ukraine are paying the price for your folly.

I agree with you that Russia is far from innocent in this crisis, but there is blame on both sides and the EU’s actions have done nothing to promote peace and reconciliation. Where are we now after all of this from the self-declared preserver of European peace? In the most dangerous world since the collapse of the Iron Curtain, NATO – which of course has many EU members who are minded and muddled by the EU common foreign, security and defence policies – has for the first time been singled out as a threat in Russian defence thinking, leading to increasing penetration into Member States’ territories and, alarmingly, a more aggressive nuclear doctrine than ever before.

For the first time since 1975, the UK is entering into a debate about our EU membership, at the very time that EU—Russia relations are at their lowest ebb and on the back of the British Prime Minister David Cameron’s open call for the European Union to stretch, in his own words, from the Atlantic to the Urals. I wait with bated breath to see whether, unlike in 1975, our politicians will be far more honest about the real intentions of how the EU intends to morph into a federal superpower. One thing is for certain though: history will be your judge.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE), blue-card question. – There is something called international law: being a member of the Security Council of the United Nations, humanitarian law, crimes against humanity. When I was in the Bosnian war, the British people – the British troops, the British government – stood up for peace in Europe in a brilliant way. Why, 20 years later, are you not ready to denounce an invasion with tanks, with thousands of troops from Russia fighting a war in Europe, with two million refugees? How would you make peace in Ukraine – with your appeasement?

  James Carver (EFDD), blue-card answer. – It is a very straightforward answer, Frau Bildt. When you speak of the Balkans war, you spoke of mandates from the United Nations, you spoke of mandates through NATO; what I am highlighting here is the approach of the European Union, which seeks to impose its tentacles further east, at the same time provoking the Russian bear. The highlight of this debate – which has been highlighted by Herr Schulz up there, it has been highlighted by Monsieur Lebreton at the back, it has been highlighted by Signor Castaldo – is EU-Russia relations. This debate is turning into a love fest for EU expansion, and that...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Mario Borghezio (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, manca una visione grande europea dei rapporti fra Unione europea e Russia, che invece è essenziale per il futuro della stessa Ucraina e dei nostri amici e colleghi dei paesi dell'Est. Che vantaggio possono avere dall'essere schiacciati in un prossimo domani al confine di una Russia che si senta minacciata?

L'Italia sta pagando pesantemente l'errore di queste sanzioni. Ora basta con queste sanzioni, lo dice la Confindustria del mio paese! Questo rallenta la nostra economia. Noi patrioti italiani diciamo basta con le sanzioni, ma disapproviamo anche le sanzioni contro i diplomatici e specialmente contro i nostri colleghi. È una politica sbagliata di ritorsioni reciproche, ma come patrioti italiani diciamo domani benvenuto Presidente Putin all'Expo di Milano. Benvenuto! È ora di una politica più efficace, vince il pensiero federalista non gli euroscettici che dicono: si sbaglia. Gli eredi del pensiero di Spinelli dicono ci vuole una politica inclusiva, il pensiero federalista dice enter, enter non out out. Bisogna …

(Il Presidente ritira la parola all'oratore)

  Elmar Brok (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Es ist im Interesse der Europäischen Union und Russlands, zueinander gute Beziehungen zu haben. Es ist in unserem politischen Interesse, gute Beziehungen zu haben zur Sicherung von Frieden und Freiheit, und es ist in unserem ökonomischen Interesse, gute Beziehungen zu haben. Die Europäische Union steht zur Verfügung, dies zu tun. Es gibt konkrete Vorschläge von Freihandelszonen, Wiederaufnahme des Partnerschaftsabkommens, den Modernisierungsvertrag. Denn Russland ist durch eigene Fehlentscheidungen in einer katastrophalen wirtschaftlichen Situation.

Aber diese Beziehungen können nur unter der Bedingung der Einhaltung des Völkerrechts laufen. Wenn wir nicht den Grundsatz akzeptieren, der seit dem Helsinki-Vertrag europäisches Recht ist, nämlich die territoriale Integrität eines Landes und die Souveränität eines Volkes, kommen wir hier nicht weiter. Die Ukraine hat mit 70, 80 % der Bevölkerung seit Anfang der Neunzigerjahre in jeder Wahl den proeuropäischen Kurs beschlossen. Und dieser proeuropäische Kurs wird von uns aufgenommen, weil dieses Land den freiheitlichen Weg gehen möchte, wie andere europäische Länder das getan haben. Der Weg Polens ist ein Beispiel für die Ukraine. Heute hat die Ukraine viermal weniger Bruttoinlandsprodukt als Polen, obwohl sie 1990 noch dasselbe hatten. Deswegen kann Russland die Beziehungen haben und die Sanktionen können abgeschafft werden, wenn es Minsk erfüllt und auf diese Art und Weise Voraussetzungen schafft für die Wiederherstellung des Völkerrechts. Das Völkerrecht ist unsere Grundlage für Europa …

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)

  Victor Boştinaru (S&D). – Mr President, I would start by saying to the Commissioner that we all consider ourselves – except those in flagrant conflict of interest with Russia – blacklisted. This is the very moment to say that we have been blacklisted, directly or indirectly, by Russia without having violated any norm or any international law. Russia has done that. I will now turn to my language, Romanian.

Dialogul a fost și rămâne cuvântul cheie în relația UE-Rusia, acesta a fost abordarea generică a Uniunii Europene cu toți partenerii săi, iar acest raport este un raport cheie într-un moment cheie pentru relațiile noastre cu Rusia.

Pe de o parte observăm, conform celor transmise de misiunea specială de monitorizare a OSCE și de către NATO, suportul militar constant oferit de Rusia separatiștilor, iar pe de altă parte continuăm să auzim retorica de negare a implicării Rusiei în conflictul din Ucraina, ba chiar un interviu scandalos al lui Putin care neagă evidențele, spunând că Vestul nu ar trebui să se simtă amenințat de către Rusia.

La toate cele menționate, spuneam, se adaugă lista neagră adoptată săptămâna trecută pe ascuns care arată adevăratele intenții ale Rusiei.

Trebuie să rămânem ancorați în valorile noastre europene și să nu ne abatem de la principiile în care credem cu toții, dar nu putem rămâne indiferenți la astfel de acțiuni provocatoare.

Personal salut inițiativa președintelui Martin Schulz de a pune restricții la accesul...

(Președintele a întrerupt vorbitorului.)

  Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Jestem obiektywny w tej debacie, bo także ja jestem na czarnej liście. Dziękuję wszystkim koleżankom i kolegom za wyrazy solidarności w tej kwestii. Witam innych kolegów w jednym klubie. Gratulacje dla pana posła Landsbergisa za bardzo dobre sprawozdanie, aczkolwiek wydaje mi się, że tutaj można przytoczyć takie chińskie przysłowie, że „lepsze jest wrogiem dobrego”. Myślę, że to sprawozdanie byłoby jeszcze lepsze bez niektórych poprawek, ale oczywiście większość decyduje.

Parlament Europejski musi zająć twarde stanowisko, bo na pewno bardziej dyplomatyczna, bardziej układna Komisja Europejska czy Rada Europejska tego za nas nie zrobią. Zawsze Parlament Europejski bardziej bronił praw człowieka i obywatela, także w kontekście naszych europejskich sąsiadów, niż inne instytucje europejskie. Z tego obowiązku nie możemy zrezygnować. A że istnieje w Europie, także tutaj, „partia przyjaciół Rosji”, to wszyscy widzimy, wiemy i czujemy to.

  Petras Auštrevičius (ALDE). – Mr President, whether we like it or not – and I must stress I certainly do not – we are already back in the times of the Cold War. Now it is a hybrid Cold War. Contrary to what he says publicly, this was Mr Putin’s deliberate policy aim, and he fully achieved it. It is not about getting back Ukraine, it is about Putin staying in power. It is about the re—Sovietisation of Russia. The old Bolshevik methods are being well tested, through external aggression and foreign enemies, internal suppression and isolation of Russian society from the West. We, the democratic world, have learned our lessons from the Cold War – though I do have some doubts after listening to our debates today – which are the following: a united and solid EU, a strong transatlantic partnership and full solidarity with those who cherish common values. It is also about us being able to deal with political bribery, such as in the shameful case of Madame Le Pen’s party.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  James Carver (EFDD), blue-card question. – Mr Auštrevičius, for the first time I find myself agreeing with you in this Chamber – that is quite frightening, isn’t it? – when you say that we seem to be heading back towards a Cold War. In that analogy I do believe you are right. But how do we approach the greater diplomatic question? Is the answer really more EU expansion eastwards, more association agreements – for example in Central Asia, on the south-east of Russian boundaries? Is that only going to exacerbate the situation further and potentially make Mr Putin even more irate?

  Petras Auštrevičius (ALDE), blue-card answer. – You are on the right way: I mean you are making some progress. Indeed, if you agree with some of the theses put forward by many of us, it is the right direction. As long as EU policy is based on international law and genuine partnerships – and indeed, free trade and political associations and partnerships – I think this is the right way. We have to extend our partnerships with the neighbourhood and we do not threaten the neighbours, unlike Mr Putin: he comes with tanks, we come with banks.

  Miloslav Ransdorf (GUE/NGL). – Americký prezident Calvin Coolidge kdysi řekl: „America's business is business“. Co je hlavním zájmem Evropské unie? Doufám, že také byznys.

Náš obchod s Ruskou federací činí zhruba 120 miliard EUR. Spojené státy mají pouze 3 miliardy, ale tlačí nás do sankcí, které jsou hloupé, nesmyslné a kontraproduktivní a které nás poškozují. Zatímco náš obchod s Ruskou federací stagnuje, obchod Spojených států s Ruskou federací v minulém roce vzrostl o 6 %.

Myslím si, že konečně bychom se měli zamyslet a přestat hrát roli užitečných pitomců pro Spojené státy.

(Řečník souhlasil s tím, že odpoví na otázku položenou zvednutím modré karty (čl. 162 odst. 8 jednacího řádu).)

  Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Herr Ransdorf! Sie haben ja sehr gute Beziehungen, auch offene Gesprächskanäle nach Russland, nach Moskau, in den Kreml. Haben Sie in den letzten Tagen kritisiert, dass Präsident Putin einen Erlass unterschrieben hat, der höchste Strafen vorsieht, wenn in Russland die Namen von Soldaten, die außerhalb Russlands im Einsatz ums Leben gekommen sind, veröffentlicht werden? Das ist ja offensichtlich etwas, das man kritisieren muss. Sie können das ja mit Ihren Beziehungen. Tun Sie das?

  Miloslav Ransdorf (GUE/NGL), odpověď na otázku položenou zvednutím modré karty. – Prezident Putin udělal rozhovor pro Corriere della Sera a řekl, že jenom šílenec nebo blázen by předpokládal, že Rusko chce někoho v zahraničí napadnout.

Myslím si, že má pravdu vzhledem k tomu, že samozřejmě Ruská federace je slabší, než byl Sovětský svaz, a že zbrojní rozpočet Ruské federace je jedna osmina toho, co mají Spojené státy. Spojené státy mimochodem mají zbrojní rozpočet, který přesahuje dohromady 12 zemí, které jsou za Spojenými státy.

  Der Präsident. – Frau Kollegin Harms! Ich glaube, Sie müssen die Frage an Herrn Ransdorf wiederholen. Nach meinem Eindruck lag es nicht an den Dolmetschern. Aber es tut mir sehr leid, wenn Herr Ransdorf – fast will ich sagen, in bester Manier – nicht die Antwort auf die Frage gegeben hat.

  Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I have received numerous congratulations during the past 10 days for being on the blacklist, but I must say that I am not very pleased. I am not amused and I am not happy, because what we are seeing is Russia simulating many actions and measures that the European Union is taking towards it, and these sanctions against persons entering the Russian Federation are a mockery of democratic principles and the rule of law. There is no transparency, there are no individual justifications, there is no possibility of appeal, and I expect the European Union to protest against such measures.

We have a problem with Russia simulating other measures, and now – with regard to these sanctions and the blacklist – we have heard Foreign Minister Lavrov saying that they tried to contain themselves for a long time in the face of the EU sanctions against Russia, but then they were forced to react, in line with the best principle of international law, which is mutuality and reciprocity. This is a mockery of international law – let’s face it. If this is the kind of partner we have before us, what can we expect?

However – to come back to Mr Landsbergis’s report – I agree with everyone who has said that the EU must remain open to a constructive relationship and to dialogue leading to that, and that the EU wishes to return to cooperative relations with Russia, should the Russian authorities meet their international legal obligations. It is our duty to find openings of this kind. However, in the current situation, with Russia again increasing and accelerating its military measures against Ukraine, it is of the utmost importance that the EU stands firm.

  Peter Lundgren (EFDD). – Herr talman! Vi diskuterar idag ett svårt, komplicerat och mycket olyckligt ämne rörande relationerna mellan Ryssland och EU. Mitt eget partis åsikter är att militära insatser är fel väg att gå för att uppnå ett gott resultat. Den enda hållbara vägen i ett demokratiskt och modernt samhälle är att ha en djup och ingående dialog med de berörda parterna i en konflikt.

I denna konflikt har man från EU:s sida ett önskemål om att återupprätta ett samarbete med Ryssland, förutsatt att de ryska myndigheterna uppfyller sina internationella och rättsliga skyldigheter. Genom annekteringen av Krim och krigföringen mot Ukraina, som i högsta grad är en handling som inte accepteras av omvärlden i stort, har Ryssland försatt sig i en situation där EU tvingats agera med bland annat sanktioner som fredliga påtryckningsmedel.

Som ett svar på detta har man från Rysslands sida upprättat en så kallad svart lista med icke önskvärda politiker som nu inte tillåts besöka Ryssland. Detta är inte ett agerande som är värdigt ett modernt land och kommer definitivt inte att förbättra Rysslands anseende i omvärlden.

Människor lider för varje dag denna konflikt pågår och tyvärr dör också människor. Det är helt enkelt inte värdigt, det som sker, inte alls. En demokrati bygger på ansvarstagande, respekt för människor och deras liv samt en acceptans för människors begär efter frihet. Jag vill härmed uppmana Ryssland att som ett steg på denna väg packa ihop sin materiel och dra sig ur Krim. Inled en dialog, och gör det nu.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, the draft report before us outlines the difficulties in our relationship with Russia, from its aggression in Ukraine to allegations of corruption and the suppression of fundamental freedoms of speech, the press and political opposition. Member States have shown solidarity with those affected through a programme of sanctions, and the UK has supported those. But ultimately a solution needs to be found recognising international law and agreements, and through diplomatic channels.

In the run up-to July, when these sanctions will be discussed again, I want very quickly to indicate how destabilising these sanctions have been for agriculture markets across Europe, particularly in the dairy and pork sectors. Even within my own constituency of Northern Ireland, product has been refused entry into Russia, costing processors there significant amounts of money. Amidst sending a message of zero tolerance to Russia and solidarity with those impacted by aggression, if sanctions are to continue, the Commission must ensure that there is adequate help to sectors across…

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE). – Priekšsēdētāja kungs! Vispirms es vēlos apsveikt G. Landsbergis ar labu ziņojumu. Krievija vienmēr ir bijusi grūts kaimiņš Eiropai. Tā ir valsts, kas savas attiecības ar Eiropu balsta uz „skaldi un valdi” politiku. Tāpēc arī G. Landsbergis ziņojums būtībā atspoguļo kompromisu starp Eiropas Savienības dienvidrietumu optimistisko un ziemeļaustrumu pesimistisko skatījumu uz Eiropas Savienības un Krievijas attiecībām.

Mums visiem ir jāapzinās, ka Putins, mēģinot mūs skaldīt, būtībā piedāvā jaunu Minheni un jaunu Jaltu. Viņš vēlas atjaunot ietekmes sfēras Austrumeiropā un izveidot buferzonu, kurā Krievija sev patur tiesības lemt par valstu likteņiem.

Eiropai ir jāspēj Krievijai atbildēt vienoti. Sankcijas nedrīkst pārskatīt, pirms Krievija pilnībā nav izpildījusi Minskas pamiera noteikumus. Eiropai jāspēj atbildēt Krievijai ar …

(Deputāti pārtrauca.)

(Runātāja piekrīt atbildēt uz zilās kartītes jautājumu (Reglamenta 162. panta 8. punkts).)

  Andrejs Mamikins (S&D) , atbilde uz zilās kartītes jautājumu. – Priekšsēdētāja kungs! Cienījamā Kalnietes kundze! Vai Jūs apzināties, ka, aicinot turpināt sankcijas un spiedienu pret Krieviju, pret esošo politisko režīmu, cietīs arī tai skaitā tie cilvēki, kuri palīdzēja Jums un Jūsu ģimenei izdzīvot Tomskas apgabalā, pārdzīvot staļiniskās represijas, kuri palīdzēja Jums izdzīvot? Cietīs arī viņi.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE), zilās kartītes jautājums. – Ziniet, Mamikina kungs, ja Jūs tik maz zināt par Sibīriju, tad labāk klusējiet. Sibīrijā aizgāja bojā trīs mani vecvecāki — divi vectēvi un mana vecmāmiņa. Mana māte gandrīz nomira badā. Par kādu palīdzību Jūs šeit varat runāt?

  Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Priekšsēdētāja kungs, godātie komisāri, godātie kolēģi! Eiropas Savienība un Krievija viena pret otru pieņēma ekonomiskas sankcijas, veic pasākumus, kas aizvieto abu pušu importu un eksportu, sastādīts amatpersonu melnais saraksts, īstenībā — saraksti, palielināts finansējums aizsardzībai. Puses ir pārliecinātas, ka tikai atbild uz pretējās puses darbībām, jo Krievijai un Eiropas Savienībai ir dažādi atskaites punkti. Krievija ir pārliecināta, ka pirmā uzsākusi Eiropas Savienība, atbalstot ievēlētā Ukrainas prezidenta Janukoviča gāšanu, bet Eiropas Savienība savukārt uzskata, ka pirmā uzsākusi Krievija, tieši sagrābjot Krimu.

Šajā sesijā tiks pieņemti divi ziņojumi ar tādu saturu, kas pasliktinās šīs attiecības vēl vairāk, un tas ir konfrontācijas turpinājums — kā divas mašīnas, kuras brauc viena otrai pretī, un neviens no šoferiem negrib apstāties vai dot ceļu, jo katrs ir pārliecināts par savu taisnību. Godātie kolēģi, ja būs sadursme, uzvarētāju nebūs. Varbūt ir laiks abām pusēm apstāties, noteikt moratoriju uz apvainojumiem un uzsākt normālu dialogu? Paldies!

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR). – Mr President, the awful reality seems to be that Russia is getting away with her aggression – perhaps not surprisingly, given the weaknesses in the EU approach. Firstly, the effectiveness of EU sanctions is limited by the fact that they do not restrict the sale of Russian gas to Europe. To confront Russian aggression effectively, certain European countries must wean themselves off reliance on Russia for energy – and by the way, we should open the Energy Chapter with Turkey.

Secondly, we must recognise that it is the Transatlantic Alliance, embodied in NATO, that is the essential guarantor of European security and which is the defence organisation that Moscow takes seriously. NATO needs to be revitalised. EU meddling in defence risks undermining these efforts and dividing the Transatlantic Alliance. Thirdly, more must be done to discourage countries that are EU Member States from doing deals with Russia, such as offering naval port facilities, which undermine Western security and solidarity.

  Hilde Vautmans (ALDE). – De relaties tussen de Europese Unie en Rusland beroeren ons al enkele maanden en we zitten eigenlijk in een impasse, in een vicieuze cirkel. Ik heb soms het gevoel dat men sancties oplegt en wedersancties oplegt en dat het eigenlijk een soort machtsspel is geworden. Wie heeft de grootste? Wie durft het verst te gaan? En ondertussen groeien jonge Russische mensen op met antiwesterse propaganda en zijn het onze fruittelers, onze groentetelers, onze vleeskwekers die de netto hoge prijs van de boycot betalen.

Mijn vader heeft me één grote les geleerd in het leven: maak nooit ruzie met je buren tenzij je bereid bent om te verhuizen. Wel, we kunnen niet verhuizen. Ik heb hier vandaag heel veel mensen gehoord die zeggen dat ze blij en fier zijn dat ze op de lijst staan. Wel, ik ben eigenlijk heel blij dat ik niet op die lijst sta. Politici moeten de dialoog aangaan, politici moeten reizen. Rusland is een fantastisch land. Ik ben dan ook van plan om weldra een bezoek aan dit land te brengen.

(De spreker stemt ermee in een "blauwe kaart"-vraag te beantwoorden (artikel 162, lid 8, van het Reglement).)

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D), Kékkártyás kérdés. – Bár többször elhangzott a teremben az, hogy kételyek vannak a szankciópolitika értékét vagy pedig hatását illetően, én azért azt kérdezném képviselőtársamtól, hogy egy olyan helyzetben, amikor Oroszország másmilyen Európát akar, akkor tulajdonképpen mi a teendő.

(A képviselő megismételte a kérdését, mert hiányzott a tolmácsolás.)

Többen felvetették a szankciópolitika valódi értékét és hatékonyságát, de képviselőtársamtól szeretném kérdezni, hogy egy olyan szituációban, amikor Európa egy másmilyen Oroszországot akar, Oroszország meg egy másmilyen Európát akar, akkor tulajdonképpen mi a teendő azon kívül, hogy megpróbálunk erős nyomást gyakorolni az orosz félre. Köszönöm!

  Hilde Vautmans (ALDE), "blauwe kaart"-antwoord. – Uw vraag is mij niet helemaal duidelijk, collega. We zitten inderdaad met die druk. We moeten als politici blijven praten. We moeten Poetin niet mooi of leuk of correct vinden. Hij is gewoon de president van Rusland. We moeten respectvol met hem omgaan. Ik denk dat dé oplossing voor het conflict is, zoals een aantal collega's ook zeiden, dat we een nieuw debat aangaan over de NAVO, over de Europese veiligheidsarchitectuur en dat we dat debat met Rusland aangaan.

  Σοφία Σακοράφα ( GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, Το σημερινό ψήφισμα αποτελεί έναν ακόμη κρίκο στην αλυσίδα των ψηφισμάτων που συνδιαμορφώνουν την σημερινή ευρωπαϊκή εξωτερική πολιτική. Μια πολιτική που, στην υπηρεσία της λυσσαλέας σύγκρουσης των συμφερόντων για την ηγεμονία στον ενεργειακό χάρτη της περιοχής, αδιαφορεί παντελώς για τα καταστροφικά αποτελέσματα στους λαούς της περιοχής.

Και αυτός ο ανηλεής πόλεμος συμφερόντων επενδύεται αδίστακτα με επικλήσεις στον σεβασμό του διεθνούς δικαίου, όπως και ο κύριος Brok προηγουμένως αναφέρθηκε, περιγράφοντας τις σχέσεις που τάχα επιδιώκονται με τους στρατηγικούς εταίρους της Ένωσης. Το ψεύτικό δίλλημα της κακής Ρωσίας που δεν πληροί τους όρους ενός ευρωπαϊκού στρατηγικού εταίρου είναι μια φάρσα.

Αρκεί μια ματιά στον κατάλογο των μέχρι τώρα ευρωπαϊκών στρατηγικών εταίρων για να καταλάβουμε πόσο σέβεται αυτή η πολιτική το διεθνές δίκαιο, τη δημοκρατία, την κρατική κυριαρχία, τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα. Κύριοι συνάδελφοι, με την αναβίωση ψυχροπολεμικών πολιτικών πρακτικών, την καλλιέργεια φόβου, αβεβαιότητας και ανασφάλειας, σας θέτω ευθέως το ερώτημα: στα αλήθεια πιστεύετε ότι αυτό είναι το θετικό όραμα και η ελπίδα που δίνουμε στους λαούς της Ευρώπης; Ότι αυτή είναι η ενωμένη Ευρώπη που θέλουμε;

  Janusz Korwin-Mikke (NI). – Mr President, I have heard plenty of good advice given to Russia. Elmar Brok says that Russia is in a catastrophic situation. Please bear in mind that the national debt is 13% of GNP. No country occupied by the European Union has such a good result. Perhaps you should rather listen to some good advice given by the Kremlin. I agree that it is not good that Moscow is increasing financing of the media, but plenty of Russian media are being financed by foreign powers, which is much more dangerous. One should bear in mind the fate of the Ukrainian state destroyed by the Americans – like Syria, Egypt, Libya. After democratisation, Serbia lost Kosovo and Ukraine has lost Crimea and Donbas. What would Russia lose if the Americans arranged a new Maidan on Red Square – and who would acquire it? Moreover, I think the European Union must be destroyed.

  Pavel Svoboda (PPE). – Vítám Landsbergisovu zprávu, vítám ji mimo jiné proto, že se neomezuje jen na agresi Ruska vůči Ukrajině, ale nezapomíná ani na Gruzii a Podněstří.

Nedávno jsem spolu s dalšími kolegy z Evropského parlamentu navštívil nejen Mariupol, ale i obranné pozice v Širokinu, a mohu tudíž z vlastní zkušenosti potvrdit mnoho z toho, co Landsbergisova zpráva popisuje.

Z minských dohod se stává cár papíru, který Putinův režim nebere vážně. Ani příměří, ani absence těžkých zbraní, ani propuštění osob, jako je pilotka a poslankyně Naďa Savčenková, nic z toho ruská strana nesplnila. Domnívám se proto, že Evropksá unie by měla přitvrdit, pokud jde o sankce vůči agresorovi, aniž by ztrácela naději, že po pádu Putinova režimu se Rusko opět stane partnerem EU jako v minulosti.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – A Rússia de Putin iniciou a agressão com a ocupação ilegal da Crimeia e prossegue-a no Donbas, não só contra a independência da Ucrânia, contra o Direito Internacional e a paz e a segurança globais.

Não queremos a guerra. Estamos e sempre estivemos abertos a dialogar e cooperar com Moscovo, apesar das listas negras de políticos europeus. Por isso, temos de aplicar sanções económicas, financeiras e outras, por muitos interesses económicos e outros que sejam afetados.

Putin conta com desunião europeia. Troquemos-lhe as voltas. As sanções terão de ser reforçadas se a Rússia continuar a violar os Acordos de Minsk. Mas importa direcioná-las. O povo russo já tem de aguentar a mordaça e o aventureirismo impostos pelo regime autoritário de Putin. É fundamental que a União Europeia apoie, política e financeiramente, defensores dos direitos humanos, bloguistas, meios de comunicação social independentes, académicos ou ONG, enfim a sociedade civil independente na Rússia.

  Bas Belder (ECR). – Als rapporteur voor dit Huis voor de betrekkingen tussen de Europese Unie en China heb ik me de laatste tijd diepgaand beziggehouden met de betrekkingen tussen Rusland en China en ook de implicaties voor de verhouding EU-Rusland. Mevrouw Mogherini, onze hoge vertegenwoordiger, is nog onlangs in Peking geweest en ik wou de commissaris vragen een tweetal vragen aan haar voor te leggen. Ik vind het ook wel jammer dat zij er niet is.

Er is sprake van een enorme verdieping, zonder precedent zeggen analisten zelfs, van de betrekkingen tussen Moskou en Peking. Welke gevolgen heeft dat voor de relaties tussen EU en Rusland, juist in deze crisissituatie?

Er wordt vaak gesproken over een constructieve bijdrage van China op het wereldtoneel. Welnu, ik wil de hoge vertegenwoordiger vragen wat de constructieve inbreng is geweest van China wat betreft de de-escalatie in Oekraïne. Wat voor constructieve inbreng is er van de kant van China geweest om te komen tot een pacificatie in deze verschrikkelijke situatie?

VORSITZ: ALEXANDER GRAF LAMBSDORFF
Vizepräsident

  Yana Toom (ALDE). – Mr President, from my personal point of view, the Landsbergis report – especially its initial version – is unfortunately good proof of the aphorism that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We cannot avoid bias if rapporteurs are feeling strong emotions related to the subject of the report. We all know the tragic history of Eastern Europe. Politicians from this region may be an important source of information about Russia; however, it is a big challenge to all of us to write balanced reports on Russia and to consider various points of view in a constructive way.

Regrettably, Mr Landsbergis is no exception. We always have to consider the atmosphere in the rapporteur’s Member State. I fully agree with the approach of my colleague Paavo Väyrynen, but this report is unfortunately not that balanced. Colleagues, there is still a glimmer of hope for normalising relations with Russia, but this report is hardly a step in the right direction. EU-Russia relations are much more important than our political ambitions. Therefore, despite the fact that I partly agree with the statements of the paper, I cannot support even this improved version.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Marju Lauristin (S&D), blue-card question. – I have a question to Ms Toom, because I know that she is from a party which has an agreement with the Russian leading party. You said that there is hope that there will be an improvement. Can you elaborate? Maybe you have a better idea of what is going on in Russia. Where is the hope? Where are the changes in Russia?

  Yana Toom (ALDE), blue-card answer. – Yes, it is true that we have a real agreement, just like 36 other European parties, including the party of Mr Jean-Claude Juncker. But I am a Member of the European Parliament, not of the Russian Duma. I feel that if we have ambitions to have some kind of dialogue with Russia, then we have to stay more constructive and free of emotions.

  Τάκης Χατζηγεωργίου ( GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, μερικοί συνάδελφοι μου δίνουν την εντύπωση ότι αισθάνονται πάρα πολύ όμορφα μέσα στην άνεση και την ασφάλεια που παρέχει αυτό το Κοινοβούλιο για να εκπονούν ιδέες επίλυσης ενός προβλήματος, βασισμένοι περισσότερο σε συναισθήματα που τους προκαλεί η ιστορία, παρά στη λογική και τον ρεαλισμό. Είτε μας αρέσει, είτε όχι, η Ρωσία και η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση είναι γείτονες και πρέπει να ληφθούν άμεσα μέτρα και από τη Ρωσία και από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, έτσι ώστε να οδηγηθούμε προς την κατεύθυνση της ισορροπίας και της συγκατάβασης, της συνεργασίας και του ρεαλισμού.

Καλούμε την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση αλλά και τη Ρωσία να σταματήσουν άμεσα τις ενέργειες που δημιουργούν εντάσεις στις σχέσεις τους, γιατί αυτό πάνω από όλα ενοχλεί τους λαούς, τους πληθυσμούς, τους πολίτες. Σκοτώνονται χιλιάδες άνθρωποι στους δρόμους και μέσα στα σπίτια τους. Οι κυρώσεις δεν βοηθούν προς αυτήν την κατεύθυνση και θα πρέπει να εγκαταλειφθούν. Ο οικονομικός πόλεμος θυματοποιεί τους λαούς της περιοχής. Η ήπειρός μας δεν χωρεί άλλες εντάσεις.

Επιζητούμε μια Ευρώπη της συνεργασίας και της αλληλεγγύης, μια Ευρώπη που θα λέει «όχι» στις αντιπαραθέσεις και στον πόλεμο. Δυστυχώς, όμως, η έκθεση την οποία καλούμαστε να συζητήσουμε δεν χτίζει γέφυρες προς αυτή την κατεύθυνση, αλλά αντίθετα διαιωνίζει το ψυχροπολεμικό κλίμα και τις αντιπαραθέσεις.

(Ο ομιλητής δέχεται να απαντήσει σε ερώτηση με ʽγαλάζια κάρταʼ (άρθρο 162 παράγραφος 8 του Κανονισμού))

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Chciałbym spytać o punkt dwudziesty sprawozdania posła Landsbergisa, który mówi o finansowym wsparciu dla niezależnych organizacji. Czy ma on szansę realizacji w kontekście rosyjskiego prawa dotyczącego działalności agenturalnej? Czy my nie zaszkodzimy tym pozarządowym organizacjom?

  Τάκης Χατζηγεωργίου ( GUE/NGL), απάντηση "γαλάζια κάρτα". – Η αλήθεια είναι ότι δεν κατάλαβα την ερώτηση, αλλά πολύ περισσότερο δεν καταλαβαίνω γιατί απευθύνεται σε μένα. Είναι μια ερώτηση που απευθύνεται στη Ρωσία. Εγώ δεν εκπροσωπώ εδώ τη Ρωσία, τι να σας απαντήσω;

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – Jelentés, 11. pont: Rendkívül aggasztónak tartjuk, hogy Oroszországban egyre inkább korlátozzák az internet szabadságát. Erről jut eszembe, hogy Edward Snowden most már két éve van politikai menekültként ebben a szörnyű Oroszországban. Mikor óhajtja most már az Unió végre kimenekíteni onnan?

12. pont: az orosz propagandával szembeni harcról szól, nyilván a Russia Today és egyéb tévék ellen. Pontosan ugyanabban a hangnemben, mint a kommunisták tették a Free Europe, a Szabad Európa Rádió üldözésének szükségességével kapcsolatosan.

15. pont: felkéri az EU-t, hogy nyújtson támogatást a magas szintű újságírói normák biztosítására Oroszországban. Most láttam a Citizenfour című filmet Edward Snowdenről. Mindenkinek ajánlom, hogy nézze meg. Itt látom a lelki szemeim előtt azt a jelenetet, amikor a Guardian-nek a pincéjében az angol titkosszolgálat törte össze azokat az adathordozókat, amelyeken Glen Greenwald újságíró megkapta Edward Slowdentől a titkosszolgálati terrorállam leleplezéséről szóló adatokat. Biztos, hogy mi vagyunk a jó tanítómesterek ezekben a kérdésekben?

  Othmar Karas (PPE). – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Zuerst bedanke ich mich bei allen, die einen Beitrag dazu geleistet haben, dass dieser Bericht eine so große, breite Mehrheit in diesem Hause bekommen kann. Er schafft Klarheit, er beschönigt nichts, aber er schafft auch Möglichkeiten des Auswegs und der Lösung dieser Krisen. Herzliche Gratulation!

Dialog setzt aber die Bereitschaft zur Aufrichtigkeit voraus. Unser größtes Problem ist die unterschiedliche Wahrnehmung. Wenn Russland die Annexion nicht als Annexion bezeichnet, sie aber eine Annexion und daher Völkerrechtsverletzung ist, wenn Russland eine blacklist macht und für keine einzige Person eine Begründung hat und wir Sanktionen machen, die die Begründung in der Annexion haben, und wenn Russland Menschen dazu beauftragt, Falschmeldungen in die Netze zu geben – wie das Ludmilla Sawtschuk mitgeteilt hat –, dann muss ich Russland auffordern, der Wirklichkeit in die Augen zu sehen, aufrichtig die Krisen und die Probleme zu benennen und zum Dialog bereit zu sein.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Łybacka tutaj wyraziła taki pogląd, że powinniśmy rozróżnić między społeczeństwem rosyjskim a władzą, i uważam, że to jest bardzo ważne spostrzeżenie. Skąd się bierze siła władzy rosyjskiej – w tej chwili prezydenta Putina? Po prostu z akceptacji społecznej. Chciałem zapytać, jaka jest wizja, opinia wśród społeczeństwa rosyjskiego na temat Unii Europejskiej, jeżeli co piąty premier tej naszej Wspólnoty jedzie indywidualnie do Rosji, o coś tam prosi i nie utrzymuje tej linii, którą nazywamy jednością Unii Europejskiej w oparciu o nasze wspólne cele? Pamiętajmy też, że Rosja jest dla nas ważnym, wciąż globalnym partnerem. Ważna jest jej pozycja w ONZ, ważna jest jej pozycja w walce z terroryzmem, w tym także w sprawach państwa islamskiego, w stosunku do Iranu i Syrii, Iraku, a zatem – tak jak to było stwierdzone – potrzebne są nam strategiczne, rozsądne i długotrwałe relacje. Nie zgadzam się z panem Carverem, my nie zachowujemy się imperialistycznie, my chcemy zasady: nie naruszaj integralności terytorialnej sąsiada.

  Ulrike Trebesius (ECR). – Herr Präsident! Sprache ist ein wichtiger Aspekt in der Diplomatie. Insofern ist es aus meiner Sicht sehr positiv, dass der Bericht Landsbergis etwas weniger aufgeregt ist als der vorherige Bericht zum Thema Russland.

Leider war die Situation in den letzten Tagen nicht sehr erfreulich. Nachdem die russische Seite ihre Verbotsliste für die Einreise nach Russland offengelegt hat, war der Aufschrei hier in der EU groß. Es musste aber doch jedem klar sein, dass Russland auf die Einreiseverbote durch den Westen mit ähnlichen Gegenmaßnahmen reagieren würde. Dass es eine solche Liste gab, war im Übrigen schon seit Monaten bekannt.

Sanktionen richten immer für beide Seiten Schaden an. Wir sehen das aktuell an den Wirtschaftssanktionen durch die EU. Nach russischen Angaben ist der Handel mit der EU im letzten Jahr um 10 %, mit Deutschland sogar um 18 % gesunken. Das kostet uns viele Arbeitsplätze. Vielleicht wäre das noch zu verstehen, wenn nicht gleichzeitig die US-amerikanischen Importe nach Russland um 6 % gestiegen wären. Hier zeigt sich, dass der Schaden sehr groß ist, wenn man die insbesondere auch von den USA geforderten Sanktionen umsetzt, aber dann Marktanteile an die USA verliert.

   Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL). – Je řada důvodů, proč nemohu tuto rezoluci, i když je lepší než původní forma, podpořit.

Text například skloňuje demokracii ve všech pádech, proklamuje zájem o dialog s Ruskem a přitom je vystavěn tak, aby jeho obnovení nadále bránil. Zcela jednostranně obviňuje Rusko ze všech hříchů, co se do textu jen vešly. Na druhé straně mi chybí podobně tvrdý dokument, který by kritizoval toleranci k pochodům veteránů SS a nacionalistů a neonacistů, např. v Kaunasu či v Rize.

Ostatně podívejme se nejdříve na dodržování vlastních vnitřních pravidel tak, aby se nestalo, že prezident Parlamentu bez mandátu poslanců svévolně rozhodne o pozastavení činnosti řádně zřízené delegace EP.

  Udo Voigt (NI). – Herr Präsident! Der Bericht von Herrn Landsbergis ist trotz Abschwächungen nach wie vor unausgewogen. Er versucht nicht zu vermitteln oder auszugleichen, sondern er gießt Benzin ins Feuer. Wie kann man es unterlassen, auf beiden Seiten die Verletzungen des Waffenstillstands von Minsk darzustellen? Wie kann man es unterlassen, in einem solchen Bericht keine Ergebnisse über das Massaker von Odessa zu bringen? Wie kann es sein, dass man hier mit assoziativen Begriffen arbeitet und sagt, ein Flieger, der vom Himmel fiel, und nicht dabei sagt, dass bis zum heutigen Tage nicht geklärt ist, wer für den bedauerlichen Abschuss dieses Fluges zuständig gewesen ist?

Wir sollten nicht auf entsprechende Provokationen reagieren, die wir vorher selber in die Wege geleitet haben. Es kann doch nicht sein, dass wir vonseiten der EU Einreiseverbote verhängen und uns dann umgekehrt über Einreiseverbote Russlands aufregen.

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señor Presidente, las relaciones de la Unión Europea con Rusia han experimentado un gran deterioro. La causa es el comportamiento de Rusia con Ucrania, incluyendo su anexión de Crimea. El siglo XXI requiere conductas respetuosas del Derecho internacional que Rusia ha ignorado. En el mundo globalizado de hoy se presentan importantes desafíos globales, por ejemplo, cambio climático terrorismo, desarme. Es cierto que para afrontar estos graves retos necesitamos el diálogo y la cooperación con Rusia, importante actor mundial y gran potencia militar y energética.

Sin embargo, la Unión Europea ha perdido la confianza en las autoridades rusas. Ya no percibimos a Rusia como socio estratégico después de lo ocurrido. A quien corresponde poner fin a esta situación de desconfianza es esencialmente a Rusia, que debe cambiar su línea de comportamiento.

Lo primero es cumplir plenamente los llamados Acuerdos de Minsk. Lo acontecido recientemente en Marinka indica lo contrario y, lógicamente, la llamada «lista negra» de personalidades de la Unión, a quienes no se permite la entrada en Rusia, es también un paso en la dirección equivocada.

  Neena Gill (S&D). – Mr President, the G7 has just wrapped up and, instead of being a participant, Russia is now on the receiving end of warnings of further sanctions. It has only itself to thank, and we may indeed need to increase pressure even further.

We also need to reflect on the fact that the Russian Government has not just succeeded in hoodwinking its own population into supporting a policy that is putting the country on a collision course with its neighbours and wrecking its economy, but what is of real concern is that it is also, increasingly, gaining traction in our own Member States and even with Members in this House by wielding the power of money, energy and disinformation. This may impact our ability to take a strong stance and defend our interests.

Therefore, only strong yet realistic demands will secure our citizens’ interests. The door must remain open for dialogue, but our red lines should remain strong and clear: no return to business as usual unless the Minsk Agreements are implemented, the territorial integrity of Ukraine is restored and the OSCE-based security order in Europe is respected.

  Beata Gosiewska (ECR). – Nie zapominajmy o tym, że bezkarność prezydenta Putina nie zaczęła się na Ukrainie i nie ma miejsca od wczoraj. Polska w dalszym ciągu nie odzyskała czarnych skrzynek i wraku rządowego samolotu, na pokładzie którego dnia 10 kwietnia 2010 r. zginęła polska elita, na czele z prezydentem Lechem Kaczyńskim. To Putin od pięciu lat prowadzi śledztwo w sprawie Smoleńska. Ubolewam nad tym, że po raz kolejny w rezolucji Parlamentu Europejskiego nie znajdzie się apel o międzynarodowe śledztwo w tej sprawie, że Unia Europejska nie pomogła Polsce w wyjaśnieniu przyczyn katastrofy w Smoleńsku, że w Parlamencie Europejskim ocenzurowano wystawę smoleńską, która domagała się tylko prawdy o Smoleńsku, a przywódcy największych państw europejskich ukrywają prawdę o Smoleńsku.

  Kaja Kallas (ALDE). – Mr President, I am happy that this report mentions the growing issue of Russian propaganda, not only in Russia itself but also in neighbouring countries such as the Baltic States and Ukraine. An open and free internet is becoming one of the building blocks of our democracy, but it is also a powerful tool in the hands of authoritarian regimes. What is happening in Russia now is an information war, as all channels are used to spread lies and conspiracy theories.

We cannot, however, fight Russian propaganda with EU or US propaganda, although we need to make all possible efforts to guarantee that Russians get uncensored information about what is going on in their country and in the world. We should not underestimate the power of words when those words are lies. I therefore call on the Commission and on the Member States to step up their efforts on this front.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Jonathan Arnott (EFDD), blue-card question. – I agree with you that we must not fight propaganda with propaganda. Do you agree with me that, as regards Russia, the key is going to be pragmatism rather than political idealism? We all have concerns about the current appalling situation, so do you agree that the real question is: what will make a practical difference?

  Kaja Kallas (ALDE), blue-card answer. – What would make a practical difference is to guarantee that the Russians get uncensored information so that they have access to decide for themselves what is going on in the world and in their country. As long as the information is censored or directed in the direction that the regime wants it to go, then it is not a free decision.

  Georg Mayer (NI). – Herr Präsident! Ich bin ganz bestimmt kein Verteidiger von Wladimir Putin. Aber heben wir uns einmal ein bisschen über diese emotionale Debatte Putin betreffend heraus, und sehen wir uns an, was davor liegt. Dann bin ich schon sehr verwundert über die Maßnahmen, die hier vorgeschlagen werden. Ich finde es zum einen schon sehr bemerkenswert, wenn etwa Mittel von uns zur Überwachung von allen russischen Medien zur Verfügung gestellt werden. Ich finde es weiters schon ziemlich bemerkenswert, wenn dann auch noch Mittel zur Überwachung von Berichterstattung von politischen Parteien und Organisationen zur Verfügung gestellt werden. Geschätzte Kollegen, das erinnert mich schon sehr stark an die Zeiten des Kalten Krieges. Das ist etwas, was ich ganz bestimmt nicht will.

Als Begleitmaßnahme wird dann noch von Präsident Schulz dem russischen Botschafter der Zutritt zu diesem Haus verwehrt. Geschätzte Kollegen, halten Sie das für vernünftig? Halten Sie das für eine vernünftige Konfliktlösungskompetenz der Europäischen Union? Für mich ist es das nicht. Dazu kann ich Ihnen nur gratulieren, da kann einem angst und bange werden.

  Der Präsident. – Herr Kollege! Ich sollte vielleicht im Namen des Präsidenten darauf hinweisen, dass dem russischen Botschafter der Zugang zum Haus nicht verwehrt worden ist. Das ist in einigen deutschsprachigen Medien falsch berichtet worden.

  Andrej Plenković (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, prije svega zahvaljujem kolegi Landsbergisu na kvalitetnom cjelovitom izvješću koje šalje pertinentne političke poruke o odnosima Europske unije i Rusije danas.

Europska je unija proteklih godina željela partnerstvo, željela je suradnju i željela je odnos s Rusijom temeljem na međusobnom poštovanju. A što je dobila? Dobila je politiku Moskve koja je kroz doktrinu ruskoga svijeta vratila u središte politiku zona utjecaja koja je, bilo kreiranjem aktivnih ili održavanjem zamrznutih konflikata, podupiranjem pobunjenika, okupacijom teritorija susjednih zemalja ili čak njenom aneksijom u vlastitom parlamentu, pokazala da do međunarodnoga prava i europskih vrijednosti uopće ne drži. Takva je politika neprihvatljiva. Igranje na kartu trgovinski odnosa, energetske ovisnosti, to su elementi na kojima Rusija nastoji razjediniti članice Europske unije.

Stoga u ovom trenutku, s ovim izvješćem moramo poslati politiku jedinstva podrške onim zemljama koje žele izabrati svoj europski put, a jednako tako reći čvrsto Moskvi da ovo kako se ponaša danas nije politika odgovorne članice Vijeća sigurnosti.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). – Mr President, on the point of the misunderstanding of what the sanctions imposed by President Schulz were exactly, the text restricts free access to Parliament to the Ambassador and one other named diplomat. It is not only a German newspaper, but half of Europe that misunderstood. The President would have done better to ask the Legal Service before formulating sanctions to impose on a third country.

  President. – I have corrected a misinterpretation by one colleague here in the House. You have read the correct text, and the correct text confirms what I have just said.

  Eugen Freund (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Sagt Ihnen der 5. September 2014 noch etwas, oder der 12. Februar 2015? An diesen beiden Tagen sind nämlich in Minsk jene beiden Abkommen unterzeichnet worden, die – wären sie eingehalten worden – unsere heutige Sitzung und vieles andere unnötig gemacht hätten. Aber dazu ist es eben nicht gekommen.

Russland hat beide Verträge unterschrieben, aber Russland ist uns die Umsetzung bis jetzt schuldig geblieben. Nicht Russland allein, wohlgemerkt! Auch in der Ukraine gibt es kaum Fortschritte. Wir warten weiterhin auf mehr Rechte für die Regionen, wir warten auf Schritte gegen die unerträgliche Korruption, wir warten darauf, dass Oligarchen nicht länger staatliche Ressourcen als Selbstbedienungsladen betrachten. Russland versucht unterdessen, einen Keil zwischen einzelne Mitgliedstaaten der Union zu treiben. Und Russland holt sich Sympathie bei den ganz Rechten und den ganz Linken, auch bei denen, die hier im Haus sitzen, indem es sie mit Geld oder Krediten ködert. Wir haben dieses Spiel durchschaut. Es muss rasch ein Ende nehmen.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, in 1999 Putin swept to power in Russia, offering to bring order to the chaos, and we thought we would see Russia becoming part of a Western, democratic system. This was in the heady days when we were still busy celebrating the end of the Cold War. In our haste, it seems that we overlooked some of the small print that Putin had included in the text.

Now we can see that his real goal was to recreate, by force if necessary, a crony capitalist version of the Soviet Union. Where Putin has not succeeded in bullying his neighbours into joining the Eurasian Customs Union, he has spread war and chaos. In 2008 he invaded Georgia and now he is invading Ukraine, after annexing Crimea.

Such ambitions, as recently declared by the G7, must have clear and serious repercussions in our relations with Russia. I have always been a strong supporter of EU sanctions, which must continue for as long as a threat to Ukraine remains. Putin rages against a unipolar world: what he intends, in reality, is the unravelling of the post-war settlements, based on the rule of law and human rights, in favour of the ‘might is right’ dogma.

  Илхан Кючюк (ALDE). – Благодаря, г-н Председател, днес по време на дебатите по доклада на г-н Ландсбергис за пореден път се повдига въпросът за взаимоотношенията на Европейския съюз с Русия. Докладът ясно отразява дълбоко увредените ни отношения и поставя под въпрос основните принципи на сигурността в Европа.

Въпреки това, ние трябва да си зададем въпроса "Представя ли си Европейският съюз завръщане към предишните отношения с Русия?" и "Какъв план за действие трябва да изготви Съюзът, за да се върнем на пътя на диалога?". Поставянето на европейски политици и членове на този парламент в черния списък не спомагат за постигането на този напредък. Нещо повече, това предразполага конфликтът в Украйна да се превърне в замразен, а опитът ни с Грузия показва, че това е сериозна пречка за развитието и стабилността на засегнатите държави и за тяхното сближаване с Европейския съюз.

Използването на енергетиката като основен външнополитически инструмент е предпоставка кризата да се разрасне и ефектите да се отразят и в други части на региона. В тази връзка подкрепям бързото създаване на силен европейски енергиен съюз.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). – Mr President, let us unite in supporting this report to send a clear message: the European Parliament does not accept Russian aggression towards its neighbour or threats towards Europe, and the Kremlin propaganda will not succeed in dividing us and destabilising Europe.

Yes, we should negotiate, but from a position of strength. And what are our strengths, colleagues? They are our economic power and our unity. Therefore, I call on the Member States to stand firm and united and, at the Council meeting on 25 June, to renew the sanctions, as an instrument of our determination for peace in Europe, until the Minsk agreement is fully implemented.

An attack against a Member of the European Parliament is an attack on the people of Europe. Therefore, I feel more proud than intimidated to be on the blacklist. It shows that we are doing a good job. The attempts to censor me make me more determined to speak up and to be committed to peace in Europe.

  Tonino Picula (S&D). – Gospodine predsjedniče, događaji posljednjih godina potvrđuju Rusiju kao najvažnijeg susjeda Europske unije koji itekako utječe na brojne aspekte funkcioniranja Unije. Od međuovisnosti u energetskom sektoru preko uvijek osjetljivih pitanja europske sigurnosti do utjecaja na unutarnje odnose Unije.

Umjesto da nam bude partner u kriznim žarištima diljem zajedničkog susjedstva gdje Europska unija i Rusija mogu skupa tražiti odgovore na izazove, agresija na Ukrajinu, ekonomske sankcije, liste nepoželjnih, sve jača suspenzija demokracije i nepostojanje pravog dijaloga realnost su trenutnih odnosa.

Nažalost, nisu ispunjeni preduvjeti za partnerstvo: odnos povjerenja, poštivanje međunarodnih načela i potpisanih sporazuma. Sporazum iz Minska ne funkcionira ni kao dogovor o privremenom prekidu vatre. A bez poštenog poštivanja teritorijalnog integriteta Ukrajine i sigurnosnog poretka u Europi partnerstvo nije moguće. Opasne su i najave sudetizacije baltičkih republika ili limitiranje država zapadnog Balkana gdje se također događa odmjeravanje snaga sa Zapadom.

Možda iluzija, ali se svejedno nadam da će predsjednik Putin sutra otvorena uma znati čuti humane poruke tijekom susreta sa papom Franjom.

  Eduard Kukan (PPE) – Základným pilierom, na ktorom musíme budovať našu vonkajšiu politiku, je zdieľanie spoločných hodnôt. Momentálne nie sme s Ruskom hodnotovo kompatibilní. Bohužiaľ. Hodnoty spolupráce, solidarity a vzájomnej podpory stoja v protiklade k destabilizácii, násiliu, nerešpektovaniu dohôd a medzinárodného práva. Sme svedkami toho, že nestabilitu a relativizmus je veľmi jednoduché prenášať čoraz bližšie k našim hraniciam. A z druhej strany, demokraciu, vládu práva a rešpekt k ľudským právam je čoraz ťažšie budovať za našimi hranicami. Politika Únie môže byť účinná iba vtedy, ak bude Únia jednotná. Tu vidím veľkú výzvu pre našu spoločnú zahraničnú a bezpečnostnú politiku. Nie je totiž možné, aby sa krátkodobé výhody stávali motívmi našej politiky voči Rusku.

  Andi Cristea (S&D). – Mr President, the actions taken by the Russian Federation continue to undermine any immediate prospect for reengagement and cooperation on the part of the EU. The Russian blacklist of European politicians and officials, including a large number of Members of this Parliament, adds yet another obstacle to mutual trust and to repeated efforts for a peaceful and sustainable solution to the current crisis.

By illegally annexing Crimea and waging an armed conflict against Ukraine, Russia has intentionally chosen not to be a partner. Breaching its international commitments including the United Nations Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, the Budapest Memorandum and the Paris Charter, Russia has contributed to thousands of deaths in Eastern Ukraine. Yet no opportunities for genuine and constructive dialogue with Moscow will be spared. The Russian Federation is and remains a prerequisite for the de-escalation of the conflict and a political, lasting solution. In the long term, the ultimate objective is and must be that of restoring dialogue and engagement with Russia to achieve peace on the European continent.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE). – Popolnoma sem prepričan v naslednje: da je bilo prizadevanje za strateško partnerstvo na podlagi skupnih vrednot in načel med Evropsko zvezo in Rusijo prava namera; da je vojna najslabši možen način za urejanje vprašanj medetičnega sožitja v Ukrajini kot tudi odnosov med Rusijo in Ukrajino; da je vojno nasilje na evropskih tleh tragični paradoks, ki je v nasprotju s političnim razvojem po padcu berlinskega zidu ter je grožnja miroljubnemu razvoju v regiji; da nobena država, ki želi z Evropsko zvezo prostovoljno deliti evropske vrednote in načela, ni grožnja za katerokoli drugo državo na svetu; da brez spoštovanja pravil mednarodnega prava in dogovorov ni mogoče doseči napredka v medsebojnem zaupanju, brez katerega ne more biti partnerstva.

  Boris Zala (S&D). – Mr President, re-balancing policy towards Russia would require a more self-confident role for the EU as an autonomous security actor, not least through greater engagement in the resolution of the existing frozen conflicts in the Eastern Neighbourhood. We need deeper cooperation in the field of defence and security, working towards a vision of common European armed forces with an integrated operational command, as well as a fully-fledged EU intelligence agency. We need an energy union: a joint mechanism to coordinate Member States’ negotiations of bilateral energy supply contracts and, ultimately, to empower the EU to negotiate contracts on behalf of the Member States. That is a way to overcome the strongest tool Russia has for dividing the Member States.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Mr President, I appreciate that the Landsbergis report is based on the quality of truth and realism – based upon, I would say, positive conditionality. The message to the European Council is very clear. Sanctions have to be continued – and even strengthened without any hesitation – because they have made a significant difference already. If not, Mr Putin would have already attacked the next targets, possibly the Baltic States. There is no dilemma about whether to have dialogue or not; it is about the substance of dialogue.

In 1938 Hitler dismembered Czechoslovakia as a result of dialogue with some democratic states, and a big war followed. So, in the same fashion, Mr Lavrov called in Munich this year for dialogue. The Ukranian crisis, he said, is an instrument to force the West to negotiate a new security system. So our message is: it is not about dialogue, it is that Mr Putin has to change or be changed.

  Francisco Assis (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, é indiscutível que o regime russo tem, infelizmente, evoluído num sentido cada vez mais autocrático, com desrespeito pelas liberdades individuais e desrespeito pela atuação das oposições e das minorias.

Isso também contribui, em grande parte, para que, no plano externo, se assista a uma violação sistemática de alguns princípios elementares do Direito Internacional e, nessa perspetiva, as posições que a União Europeia foi adotando ao longo dos últimos meses, com o apoio, aliás, das Nações Unidas, têm-se revelado as mais corretas e as mais adequadas.

Isso, contudo, não deve levar-nos a perder de vista a importância geopolítica do relacionamento entre a União Europeia e a Rússia. Há pouco, alguém fez aqui referência à circunstância de estarmos a assistir a uma tendência para que a Rússia reforce as suas relações com a China e creio que, nesse plano, nós devemos ter algum cuidado na forma como abordamos a possibilidade de aumentarmos as sanções a aplicar à Rússia. Por um lado, devemos apoiar aqueles que na Rússia se batem pelos direitos humanos. Julgo que isso é absolutamente fundamental. Por outro, temos que ter alguma ponderação na forma como abordamos a questão russa em termos internacionais.

  Jaromír Štětina (PPE). – Rusko v roce 1994 podepsalo Budapešťské memorandum, v němž se Ukrajina vzdává ve prospěch Ruska svého jaderného arzenálu. Rusko se za to zavazuje dodržovat teritoriální nedotknutelnost Ukrajiny. Dvacet let poté Rusko tuto smlouvu hrubě pošlapalo. Není to poprvé. Jakákoliv smlouva podepsaná s Ruskem má cenu toho papíru, na kterém je napsána.

A není to ani naposledy. Dnes Rusko porušuje dohody podepsané v Minsku a znovu projevuje své opovržení demokratickými principy a dodržováním mezinárodního práva. Já se vás ptám, paní komisařko, jak dlouho se ještě necháme Ruskou federací ponižovat?

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). – Sveikinu savo kolegą Gabrielių Landsbergį už jo parengtą labai svarbų ir aktualų pranešimą.

Europos Sąjunga jau daugelį metų nuosekliai stengiasi plėtoti abiems pusėms naudingą strateginę partnerystę su Rusija. Tačiau neteisėta Krymo aneksija, tebekurstomas konfliktas Ukrainoje bei akivaizdus demokratijos ir žmogaus teisių paminimas pačioje Rusijoje yra rimtas išbandymas Europos Sąjungai ir jos solidarumo patikrinimas. Baltijos šalys gerai žino, ką reiškia dabartinės Rusijos kaimynystė. Jos pirmosios pajuto Rusijos taikomų apribojimų ir sankcijų smūgį savo ekonomikoms. Tačiau atsilaikė. Daugelį metų kalbėjome, kad Rusija energetiką naudoja kaip politinio spaudimo priemonę. Todėl Europos Sąjunga privalo padaryti teisingas išvadas ir dėti visas pastangas, kad sukurtų tvirtą Europos energetikos sąjungą. Tik solidari, o ne pavienė ir susiskaldžiusi Europa bus pajėgi atsilaikyti prieš išorės spaudimą. Todėl norisi tikėti, kad Europos Sąjunga išlaikys solidarumo testą Rusijos atžvilgiu.

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). – Mr President, first of all, congratulations to Mr Landsbergis on his report. I think it is important to state that we want open relations, dialogue and cooperation with Russia based on respect for international law. But this is the problem. The regime of Putin is breaking international law and undermining the European peace order, and he is waging war in the free nation of Ukraine in Europe. This is the fact and reality. No one is threatening Russia. But the Putin regime fears democracy, the rule of law and freedom of expression. They fear the open dialogue that we want. That is why some of us are blacklisted, because they want to blacklist freedom of expression and democracy and the open society. So let us turn this into an increased dialogue underlining sanctions for breaking international law, but an open cooperation with respect for international law.

  Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, critichiamo la Russia governata da Putin per tutte le ragioni elencate nella relazione Landsbergis. Come Unione europea non possiamo permetterci infatti di accettare con leggerezza la violazione del principio di integrità territoriale di cui vittima è stata l'Ucraina e sul quale si basa l'equilibrio mondiale. In questo senso, la Russia deve dimostrare la volontà di rispettare l'accordo di Minsk, volontà tuttora largamente mancante.

Si è da poco conclusa, purtroppo con un sostanziale nulla di fatto, la conferenza quinquennale di revisione del trattato di non proliferazione nucleare, un tema troppo spesso ignorato. Anche in quest'occasione si è assistito a un pesante scambio di accuse tra delegazione statunitense e quella russa. Ecco, io credo fortemente che il miglioramento dei rapporti tra Russia e Unione europea debba anche necessariamente passare dal tema del nucleare. Pensiamo all'importante ruolo che la Russia gioca nei negoziati con l'Iran, giunti nella loro fase cruciale.

La ricostruzione di un rapporto durevole di amicizia e rispetto reciproco con il popolo russo, dunque, è fondamentale anche per questioni di sicurezza globale. La ripresa del dialogo e dell'azione diplomatica deve trovare l'Unione europea protagonista, nonostante l'ultima deprecabile vicenda della lista nera, contro la quale sono state prese anche le mele marce.

  Ramón Luis Valcárcel Siso (PPE). – Señor Presidente, felicito también al ponente por este acertado informe.

La medida arbitraria e injustificada de las autoridades rusas de prohibir la entrada en su territorio de políticos y funcionarios europeos —entre los cuales me incluyo— constituye un paso más en la dirección equivocada que están tomando las autoridades de este país.

Esta presión creciente que Putin ejerce sobre los europeos obstaculiza los esfuerzos de la comunidad internacional de crear un diálogo constructivo que genere una solución pacífica y duradera a este conflicto geopolítico que vivimos en nuestra vecindad. Así lo ha denunciado este Parlamento y así se ha pronunciado la COSAC la semana pasada en Riga.

Necesitamos entonces preguntarnos qué pretenden las autoridades rusas: ¿la paz o la confrontación permanente a través de la violación de la integridad territorial de sus vecinos? ¿La inclusión en la familia europea o el aislamiento? ¿El diálogo entre iguales o el castigo a aquellos que se atreven a pensar de otra manera?

Termino, señor Presidente, …

(El Presidente retira la palabra al orador.)

  Knut Fleckenstein (S&D). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Lassen Sie mich zunächst meine Enttäuschung äußern, dass gerade mal 10 % der Abgeordneten des Europäischen Parlaments heute an dieser Debatte teilnehmen, dass der Rat überhaupt gar nicht erst gekommen ist und sich auch kein Fraktionsvorsitzender außer Frau Harms an dieser Debatte beteiligt. Ich glaube, dass die Möglichkeiten, die wir haben, nicht genutzt werden, wenn wir eine solche Debatte in dieser Art führen. Vielleicht liegt es daran, dass der Bericht und auch die Diskussion nicht sehr viel Neues bringen. Leider! Denn gerne hätten wir – und ich bin sicher, auch der Berichterstatter – hier etwas Neues diskutiert, wenn es eine positive Entwicklung gegeben hätte.

Lassen Sie mich nur zwei, drei kurze Punkte ansprechen. Das eine ist das Thema Sanktionen. Selbstverständlich machen Sanktionen doch nur dann Sinn, wenn man auch zu ihnen steht, bis sich eine Verbesserung der Situation eingestellt hat. Eine solche Verbesserung ist nicht zu sehen, und deshalb gibt es auch zur Zeit kein Zurück bei den Sanktionen.

Auf der anderen Seite ist auch klar, dass das ein Weg in zwei Richtungen sein kann, frei nach dem Motto „more for more and less for less“. Wenn es in die richtige Richtung geht, werden wir diese Sanktionen auch abbauen wollen. Wenn es in die falsche Richtung geht, wird es nicht die letzte Sanktion sein, die wir eingeführt haben. Die schwarze Liste ist ganz eindeutig ein Schritt in die völlig falsche Richtung. Ich bin sehr damit einverstanden, wenn die Kollegen und Kollegen das hier sagen. Ich füge hinzu – und da sind wir wahrscheinlich nicht alle einer Meinung: Das Setzen von Duma-Abgeordneten auf die Sanktionsliste ist auch ein Fehler gewesen, ist vielleicht der einzige Fehler, der mir bei den Sanktionen auffällt. Denn es kann doch auf Dauer nicht richtig sein, dass die Lawrows und Putins und Medwedews als Gesprächspartner zur Verfügung stehen, aber der parlamentarische Dialog nicht. Und insofern sollten wir uns überlegen, wie wir es hinkriegen, diesen parlamentarischen Dialog auch in Zukunft aufrecht zu erhalten auf einem Level, der angemessen ist und nicht konterkariert, was bisher gesagt worden ist.

Letzter Punkt: Ich glaube, dass wir Abrüstung brauchen – das ist im Minsker Abkommen vorgesehen. Und wir wollen, dass dieses Minsker Abkommen eingehalten wird. Das gilt für alle Seiten, auch für die Kiewer Seite, aber in erster Linie für diejenigen, die in diesem Land nichts zu suchen haben, und das sind fremde Soldaten.

  Андрей Ковачев (PPE). – Благодаря, г-н Председател. "Съединението прави силата" е девизът на България и точно от това ние се нуждаем днес повече от всякога в Европейския съюз. Европа трябва да остане единна пред предизвикателствата пред нас, идващи от изток и от юг.

Русия, вместо да е наш естествен партньор, вижда в наше лице противник. За съжаление управляващата администрация в Кремъл не само е запазила все още манталитета от Съветския съюз, но и се опитва да възстанови насилствено този съюз под ново име. Само че тази нова съветска администрация пропуска важна подробност, а това е, че един такъв съюз би трябвало да бъде доброволен и привлекателен за своите граждани.

А практиката показва, че демокрацията е привлекателна. Много млади хора от цял свят искат да имигрират в посока западните демокрации и Съединените щати. Нещо повече, голяма част от семействата на управляващата руска администрация, включително и децата на господата Путин и Лавров, са решили да живеят в западния свят. Сегашният модел на управление на Кремъл не е привлекателен. В същото време Европейският съюз не може да бъде безучастен и да не отговори на агресивната пропагандна машина.

Искам да призова също за възстановяване на „Набуко“ и да подкрепя доклада на колегата Ландсбергис.

  Lars Adaktusson (PPE). – Herr talman! Jag vill börja med att tacka kollegan Landsbergis för ett väl avvägt betänkande som understryker att Ryssland inte längre är en strategisk partner till EU. Låt oss betrakta den här resolutionen som en mycket väsentlig utgångspunkt för ministerrådets fortsatta diskussioner kring sanktionsfrågan.

Ett hävande av sanktionerna skulle de facto vara ett erkännande av Krimhalvön som rysk. När vi dessutom vet att Putin har möjlighet att sätta stopp för kriget i östra Ukraina så skulle det också vara en seger för den strategi av våld och söndring som Kreml tillämpar. Det är inte EU som ska förändras, det är Putin som ska förändras. En förlängning av sanktionerna är nödvändig för Ukrainas skull, för trovärdigheten i vår utrikespolitik och för att värna de säkerhetspolitiska spelregler som gällt i Europa sedan andra världskriget.

  Daniel Buda (PPE). – Dreptul la viață, libertatea de exprimare și de asociere, respectarea frontierelor și a suveranității statelor, constituie doar câteva dintre principiile care guvernează Uniunea Europeană.

Încălcarea de către Rusia a acestor valori, prin acțiuni de anexare a Crimeii, de destabilizare a Ucrainei și a regiunii, a fost de natură să atragă un set de măsuri, din partea comunității internaționale, menite să corecteze aceste derapaje.

Rusia trebuie să înțeleagă că, deși Uniunea Europeană își dorește un parteneriat strategic care să vizeze interesele comune, acest lucru nu va fi posibil cât timp se manifestă ca un rival al statului de drept, iar acordul de la Minsk, deși trebuia să devină o realitate, astăzi este tot mai mult încălcat.

Atragem atenția Federației Ruse că, oricât de mult ar depinde statele membre de componenta energetică, niciodată acestea nu vor accepta încălcarea principiilor de bază a securității în Europa.

Instituțiile europene și statele membre vor rămâne pe poziții ferme împotriva oricăror agresiuni de natură să pună în pericol pacea și stabilitatea în regiune.

  Siegfried Mureşan (PPE). – Mr President, to me the most important question in our relations with the Russian Federation right now is how we move forward in these relations. I would course prefer that we move forward on the basis of common values – but do we share values with a political leadership that invades another country or that pursues an illegal annexation of the territories of another country? I am afraid we do not. In fact I am pretty certain we do not share common values with them.

Until Russia decides to be a trustworthy partner for the free world, I think our number one objective should be to help countries in the Eastern Neighbourhood which are under pressure from Russia. We have to tell the people in these countries that we want these countries to be strong, independent and developed, and the Russian Federation wants these countries to be weak and controllable so that they can be blackmailed. We should use the financial and institutional means that we have to help these countries develop to build strong and independent institutions at home, and we have to resist the Russian propaganda there. We should communicate to the people of these countries what the benefits of cooperation with the EU are for those people.

  Dariusz Rosati (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Gratuluję panu posłowi Landsbergisowi świetnego sprawozdania i chciałem zwrócić uwagę na trzy kluczowe sprawy. Po pierwsze, chcę podkreślić konieczność utrzymania jednolitego stanowiska państw członkowskich wobec Rosji. Rosja podejmuje starania, aby rozbić solidarność europejską. Unia Europejska w tej sytuacji musi mówić jednym głosem. Pamiętajmy, że możemy być skuteczni w polityce międzynarodowej tylko wtedy, gdy będziemy zjednoczeni.

Druga sprawa dotyczy sankcji – wprowadzone zostały w reakcji na agresję Rosji wobec Ukrainy. Zwracam uwagę, że ta agresja trwa nadal, czego dowodem jest atak separatystów na Marinkę koło Doniecka. Dalsze utrzymanie sankcji jest w tej sytuacji konieczne. Rosja musi płacić wysoką cenę polityczną, ekonomiczną i finansową za swoją agresywną politykę.

Po trzecie, Unia stała się obiektem niesłychanie agresywnej kampanii propagandowej i kampanii nacisków ze strony Rosji. Musimy skutecznie przeciwstawić się tej rosyjskiej propagandzie oraz ujawnić i napiętnować rosyjskich agentów wpływu – coraz bardziej aktywnych w naszych krajach. Proszę kolegów posłów o poparcie sprawozdania pana Landsbergisa.

  Andrea Bocskor (PPE). – Landsbergis kolléga nagyon alapos munkát végzett, és széles körű összefoglalást nyújt az EU és Oroszország közötti kapcsolatokról. Mint azt a jelentés és számos európai politikus is vallja, tagadhatatlan, hogy az EU és Oroszország közötti kapcsolatok mélypontra érkeztek, és javulás nem is várható addig, míg maradéktalanul végre nem hajtják a minszki megállapodásokat. A Krím jogellenes annektálása, az Ukrajna ellen indított hibrid háború, és annak szándékos destabilizációja mind alátámasztják, hogy Oroszország nemzetközi jogot és normákat sértett.

Az tény, hogy jelenleg is Oroszország által támogatott és felfegyverkezett 42,5 ezer orosz katona és szakadár fegyveres tartózkodik a Donyec medencében, továbbá, hogy a minszki tűzszüneti megállapodás óta a harcok nem csillapodtak, és több mint négyezerszer megszegték a tűzszünetet, amiből 120 alkalommal lakott településekre nyitottak tüzet. Sőt, április óta a szakadárok tüzérségi támadásai megduplázódtak, ami újabb 150, köztük 50 civil halálos áldozatot követelt. Ezért az Európai Uniónak a feladata, hogy a párbeszédet fokozza, felügyelje, és minél hamarabb tárgyalóasztalhoz ültesse ismét a feleket. Köszönöm!

  Bendt Bendtsen (PPE). – Hr. formand! Først tak til Landsbergis for en stærk betænkning, som vil tiltrædes af et stort flertal i Parlamentet.

Rusland har igen og igen vist, at man med Putin i spidsen ikke respekterer demokrati, menneskerettigheder og pressefrihed. Også de destabiliserende handlinger i Ukraine er et brud på internationale forpligtelser og en krænkelse af demokratiske principper.

Konflikten i Ukraine er en trussel mod sikkerheden og freden i hele Europa. Jeg tror, at så længe Putin regerer Rusland, vil kursen ikke blive ændret, men vi må fastholde og udbygge vores sanktioner mod Rusland.

Der er jo ingen tvivl om, at når vi ser på vores energipolitik i Europa, så siger det i hvert fald mig, at vi bliver nødt til at blive uafhængige på sigt, for denne konflikt løses ikke her og nu. Derfor må Europa sørge for, at vi bliver energiuafhængige af Rusland i fremtiden.

  Der Präsident. – Vielen Dank, meine Damen und Herren! Wir hatten jetzt eine sehr lange Debatte mit sehr vielen blauen Karten am Anfang. Ich kann deswegen nur ein ganz verkürztes Catch-the-eye-Verfahren durchführen.

Catch-the-eye-Verfahren

  Γεώργιος Κύρτσος ( PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η ένταση στις σχέσεις μεταξύ της Ρωσίας και της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης θα συνεχιστεί. Κι αυτό γιατί η προοπτική της ρωσικής οικονομίας έχει επιδεινωθεί, ιδιαίτερα μετά την πτώση των διεθνών τιμών του πετρελαίου και του φυσικού αερίου. Ο πρόεδρος Πούτιν επιλέγει την αντιπαράθεση με τη Δύση, σαν μέσο συσπείρωσης της ρωσικής κοινής γνώμης γύρω από ένα καθεστώς το οποίο δεν μπορεί να αντιμετωπίσει αποτελεσματικά τα προβλήματα της καθημερινότητας του πολίτη.

Η ευρωπαϊκή απάντηση σε αυτή την πρόκληση θα πρέπει να είναι οικονομική, εφόσον εκεί έχουμε το συγκριτικό πλεονέκτημα. Μια πρώτη οικονομική παρέμβαση στρατηγικής σημασίας θα πρέπει να είναι υπέρ της Ουκρανίας, η οποία δέχεται και τη μεγαλύτερη πίεση από τη Ρωσία. Το ζήτημα του χρέους της Ουκρανίας και της χρηματοδότησης της ανάπτυξής της, πρέπει να αντιμετωπιστούν άμεσα, γιατί συντηρώντας την οικονομική αβεβαιότητα ευνοούμε τη στρατηγική της Ρωσίας.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la cronaca quotidiana delle azioni russe sembra volta a destabilizzare la comunità democratica internazionale, esprimo profonda preoccupazione per il fatto che ora la Russia agisce apertamente come fosse un nostro rivale premendo con forza sui confini europei.

Condivido la proposta di risoluzione che non dismette i tentativi di ristabilire un dialogo, almeno sui valori e principi condivisi, quali democrazia, Stato di diritto e interessi comuni. Per l'Unione Europea si dispiegano, a mio avviso, due direzioni che ritengo doveroso percorrere: la fermezza diplomatica che ogni partnership sia possibile solo laddove le autorità russe si conformino ai loro obblighi internazionali e giuridici e la consapevolezza della vulnerabilità energetica e della necessità di dotarsi di risorse autonome; va ristabilito un regime di fiducia reciproca, fondata su democrazia, sovranità territoriale, rispetto dei diritti umani e Stato di diritto, per mezzo di dialogo e cooperazione; va poi sviluppata una solida Unione europea dell'energia, con un mercato libero, trasparente e con una proporzione adeguata di energie rinnovabili, affinché l'energia non sia strumento chiave della politica estera russa.

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, nema nikakve dvojbe da je rješenje naših odnosa s Rusijom rješavanje problema u Ukrajini. Nema nikakve dvojbe da je aneksija Krima od strane Rusije jasan pokazatelj da sadašnja ruska vlada ne mari previše za europske dogovore i sporazume.

Ali, ono što želim ovdje naglasiti je potreba da i naši prijatelji u Ukrajini razumiju, naročito sada kada pripremaju novi Ustav, da Ukrajina kao država treba biti snažno i jako decentralizirana država, po ugledu na mnoge europske države i na mnoga iskustva koja mi imamo, pogotovo kada govorimo o zaštiti nacionalnih zajednica, zaštiti manjina, jezičnih, kulturnih, nacionalnih manjina.

Mislim da ta kombinacija decentralizirane države uz zaštitu manjina može biti ključno za rješavanje naših problema s Rusijom.

(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)

  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, this debate has shown yet again how important Russia is for us, in terms of both the risks that Moscow’s policy poses and the opportunities that are offered for mutually-beneficial cooperation. We must be fully prepared to face such risks and protect our citizens from hybrid threats. At the same time, we should not lose determination to build on the opportunities and further develop our relations.

Let me now react to several contributions which we have had. The European Union is not being humiliated or allowing anyone to humiliate. We are firm and united on our sanctions. These show clear support for Ukraine and at the same time impose a cost on the violation of international law.

In reaction to the debate on the blacklist, let me quote High Representative/Vice-President Mogherini: ‘We did protest and will continue to do so in all circumstances.’ Unfortunately, Federica Mogherini cannot be present for this very important debate today on EU relations with Russia, as she is currently chairing the EU-CELAC summit. I will report to her your main messages and I am sure that you will have the opportunity to discuss this important item with her soon.

Let me thank you for your fruitful exchanges. Your report is a timely and strong document. I look forward to its final adoption later this week.

  Gabrielius Landsbergis, rapporteur. – Mr President, I should like to thank colleagues for the debate and for their options. We must understand that Russia today is at a crossroads: but which path will it choose? The one of the old ways of Cold War times, or another one of cooperation and adherence to international norms?

I am convinced that the Russian people are not willing to make war; they want peace, like all of us. Therefore Russia is capable of change, and that change will come from within. We have to support those who still dare to speak out for democracy and human rights in an atmosphere of suppression, murders, poisonings and harassment.

It is up to the EU to show and encourage the Russian leadership that the path of folly and aggression will not pay for Russia. We continue to stand with good intentions towards Russia; but saying that, it is commitments first rather than incentives first. Once the Minsk Agreement is implemented and Crimea is set on the path to be returned, Europe will be ready to engage with Russia. At the same time we have to be conscious about the influence that the Russian leadership is trying to gain within the EU, trying to divide us and not let us be united. We have heard that – some of it today, here in this House – from some of the politicians as if they were under the influence of the Kremlin.

The Kremlin will have to decide which path to take, but the EU will take its time to become more united, more resilient to propaganda, to trade pressures and energy wars. By our vote in this House we will send a clear and strong message to Russia. We will show that Europe is united and standing firmly for universal values. Europe will stand committed to its principles of democracy, the rule of law and peace.

(Applause)

  Der Präsident. – Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich danke für diese lange, lebhafte und interessante Debatte.

Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet am Mittwoch, 11. Juni, statt.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 162 GO)

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), na piśmie. – Wydarzenia ostatnich dni wyraźnie pokazują, iż Moskwa nie chce trwałej deeskalacji sytuacji na wschodzie kontynentu. W ciągu minionych kilkunastu miesięcy Unia i jej państwa członkowskie niezliczoną ilość razy dawały prezydentowi Putinowi okazję do wyjścia z twarzą z sytuacji, w której się znalazł. W końcu musimy się pogodzić z faktem, iż obecny stan nie jest wynikiem nieprzewidywalnych zbiegów okoliczności, ale celowych działań rosyjskich polityków. Oni wyraźnie chcą eskalacji sytuacji na Ukrainie i pogorszenia relacji z państwami zachodnimi. W tym celu rosyjskie samoloty i okręty wojskowe naruszają naszą przestrzeń terytorialną. W tym celu łamane są zasady Światowej Organizacji Handlu, a surowce energetyczne wykorzystywane są jako instrument polityki zagranicznej. Trzeba to wyraźnie powiedzieć – to nie my wywołaliśmy ten konflikt i nie my go z zadziwiającą regularnością zaostrzamy. Nawet obecny kryzys związany z masowym napływem nielegalnych imigrantów do państw południa Europy ma swoje źródło w działaniach Kremla. Gdyby nie wsparcie udzielane przez Moskwę reżimowi Baszszara al-Asada, wojna domowa w Syrii już dawno byłaby zakończona i nie doszłoby do tylu tragedii. Europa musi więc na nowo przemyśleć swoje stosunki z Rosją. W najbliższych latach z pewnością nie będzie to strategiczne partnerstwo. Potrzebna jest nowa formuła współpracy.

  Monica Macovei (PPE), in writing. – Russia is not showing respect for the signed agreements such as the Minsk Agreement and for the international democratic community and its law-based order, which is leading to chaos. Russia violated Ukraine’s sovereignty under the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1994 and breached its obligations by annexing Crimea. Russia does not seem to foresee an end of its aggression because it renewed the production of the supersonic strategic bomber and missile carrier. Russia does not admit its direct involvement in the war from Ukraine, but on the other hand Russia refuses to sign the UN nuclear annual report because the document lists Sevastopol as being located in Ukraine. Double standards!

Another fact is the persistent repression of political activists and political opponents, and I have in mind the following cases which ended up with the death of: Anna Politkovskaya, Natalya Estemirova, Boris Nemtsov, Sergey Magnitsky, Alexander Litvinenko. I condemn the fact that Russia turned a blind eye towards the signed agreements; Russia neglects the persisting culture of impunity which proves that Russia doesn’t have any respect for its own people, neither for members of the international community!

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (PPE), in writing. – I consider that the EU must demonstrate commitment, unity and solidarity in sanctioning the Russian actions against the applicable international law rules. It is necessary and important that the current international legal framework be fully respected. The EU needs an effective approach, especially regarding the economic, defence and security areas, in order to internally strength the EU, to update and improve the existing instruments and to amplify its reaction capacity to the evolution in its neighbourhood that affects European security. It is necessary to sustain the Eastern Partnership countries in their efforts regarding internal reforms, in relation to all relevant domains – economic affairs, minorities, democratic governance – in order for such countries to have sovereignty and be able to decide for themselves, based on their national interests, including regarding their options for foreign affairs policy or integration into international organisations.

  Urmas Paet (ALDE), kirjalikult. – ELi–Venemaa suhetel oleks suur potentsiaal normaliseeruda, kui Venemaa hakkaks aktsepteerima oma naaberriikide õigust ise oma tulevikku määrata ja aitaks ka tegelikkuses kaasa külmutatud konfliktide lahendamisele. Selle eeldus on, et Venemaa ei näe enam läänt ja Euroopat vaenlase ja julgeolekuriskina. Selle asemel, et kulutada suuri ressursse justkui läänest lähtuva ohuga tegelemiseks, oleks Venemaal mõistlik keskenduda tegelikele julgeolekuohtudele, mis kindlasti ei lähtu läänest, vaid hoopis lõunast, ja need ohud on Euroopal ja Venemaal ühised. Seega eeldab ELi–Vene suhete normaliseerumine, et Venemaa hakkab nägema maailma nii, nagu see on nüüd, mitte 20. sajandi vastasseisu mustri järgi. Väga häiriv on Venemaa käitumine, mis puudutab konkreetsetelt inimestelt vabaduse võtmist. Eesti politseiniku Eston Kohveri elust on Venemaa röövinud juba 9 kuud. Ta on ikka Venemaal vangis, eemal oma lähedastest, sealhulgas väikestest lastest. Ta tuleb vabastada. Sest kuni Venemaa ei väärtusta inimlikkust, on ka väga keeruline eeldada olemuslikku muutust ELi–Vene suhetes.

  Ева Паунова (PPE), в писмена форма. – Геополитическата обстановка, в която се намираме, изисква от страните – членки на ЕС, да са обединени. Но за да поддържаме мира около нас това е недостатъчно. Необходими са ни партньори. Такъв партньор трябваше да бъде Русия, чиито последни действия сочат в съвсем друга посока.

Необоснованият забранителен списък с европейски дипломати, на които се отнема достъпа до руска територия, беше поредната стъпка към изолация на сегашните управляващи в Кремъл. Прекъсната беше още една пътека за диалог. Вместо да се изтегли от източна Украйна, Русия предизвиква Европа и рискува по-сериозна конфронтация.

Потвърдиха се най-лошите прогнози, че целите на днешните управляващи в Москва са далече от европейските ценности. Неспазването на споразумението от Минск няма как да спомогне за намаляването или отпадането на санкциите срещу Русия.

  Alfred Sant (S&D), in writing. – We are facing a situation that results from a build-up of mistrust and an extended powerplay that have gone out of control. One major reason for this is that all sides involved have not been acting in good faith. Ukraine, where complex and longstanding jealousies between communities have festered for too long, is racked by civil war. It has become the testing ground for a confrontation between the EU’s soft power and Russia’s boots on the ground. It is the Ukrainian people who have suffered most because of the crisis. I cannot have confidence in the version of one side or the other regarding the Ukrainian crisis, nor in the proposals that they are making regarding the future organisation of the European space. A resolution of the crisis can only emerge when there is a transparent description of the legitimate aspirations of all sides involved, especially including the Ukrainian communities of east and west; agreement across the board to respect such legitimate aspirations; and then agreement regarding a long term plan under international law, to give them satisfaction. This should take into full account the historical realities and contemporary interdependencies that define the European space.

  Dubravka Šuica (PPE), napisan. – U vezi odnosa Europske unije i Rusije smatram da Rusija ilegalnom aneksijom Krima, izravnim i neizravnim sudjelovanjem u oružanom sukobu u Ukrajini te povredom teritorijalnog integriteta Gruzije narušava demokratska i međunarodna načela. Štoviše, ekonomska prisila i politička destabilizacija koju Rusija provodi prema svojim europskim susjedima predstavlja svjesno kršenje međunarodnog prava.

S obzirom na navedeno, Europska unija mora temeljito procijeniti odnos s Rusijom i pripremiti sveobuhvatan plan o budućnosti odnosa s Rusijom i istočnim susjedima. Europska unija godinama teži izgradnji uzajamno korisnog strateškog partnerstva s Rusijom te je i dalje otvorena za takav odnos i dijalog u budućnosti kada za to budu ispunjeni preduvjeti. Rusija je važan partner Europske unije i trebali bismo, na obostranu korist, definirati i na konstruktivan način uspostaviti dugoročno održiv odnos temeljen na poštivanju međunarodnog prava.

  Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I fully support extending the European Union’s sanctions towards Russia. Furthermore, I applaud Mr Schulz’s decision to restrict the Russian ambassador’s free access to the European Parliament. This sends exactly the right signal to Russia which is exercising Byzantine and Soviet diplomacy even to this day. I would like to remind to some of my colleagues in the European Parliament who have expressed their concern about this decision that this is not a full access ban; it simply removes the additional privilege of unfettered access. Moreover, the Estonian police officer Eston Kohver who was abducted by force from Estonian territory nine months ago is still illegally detained in a Russian prison. The European Union cannot remain idle regarding this clear violation of international law and human rights. Ceterum censeo, Eston Kohver has to be released immediately and returned to Estonia.

  Mihai Ţurcanu (PPE), în scris. – Consolidarea capacităților militare defensive ale UE trebuie dublată de stimularea dezvoltării economice a acestor regiuni, preponderent slab dezvoltate și, drept urmare, vulnerabile în fața expansionismului Rusiei, care se exprimă și printr-o ofensivă propagandistică și economică.

UE trebuie să-și întărească și economic flancul estic. Gradul ridicat de sărăcie din regiunea nord-est a României expune nordul Moldovei unor riscuri sporite în fața acțiunilor propagandistice și economice instrumentate de Rusia. Recentele achiziții masive de terenuri pe malul drept al Prutului de către grupuri de interese apropiate Moscovei reprezintă un semnal de alarmă în acest sens.

Consider că e nevoie de o focalizare a eforturilor, la nivel european, pentru a contracara creșterea influenței economice și mediatice a cercurilor proruse, tot mai active în est.

Consider că Uniunea Europeană trebuie să investească urgent în relansarea economică a regiunilor sale de frontieră, precum și în dezvoltarea unor alternative la propaganda rusă. Totodată, se impune o monitorizare mai atentă și stoparea suportului Rusiei pentru partidele radicale și extremiste din statele membre ale UE.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – É extraordinário que neste relatório se mostre preocupação com os contactos e a cooperação cada vez mais intensos, tolerados pela liderança russa, entre partidos europeus populistas, fascistas e de extrema-direita e as forças nacionalistas na Rússia. A maioria deste Parlamento, pelo contrário, não parece nada preocupada com a promulgação, no passado mês de maio, de leis, na Ucrânia, que criminalizam a ideologia e os símbolos comunistas, impedindo a atividade do Partido Comunista da Ucrânia, assim como de outras forças democráticas e antifascistas ucranianas. Parece que à maioria do PE já não incomoda a presença de forças fascistas no governo ucraniano e a repressão das liberdades democráticas.

IN THE CHAIR: ULRIKE LUNACEK
Vice-President