Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 14 September 2021 - Strasbourg

10. Direction of EU-Russia political relations (debate)

  Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η έκθεση του Andrius Kubilius, εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Εξωτερικών Υποθέσεων, που αφορά την κατεύθυνση των πολιτικών σχέσεων ΕΕ-Ρωσίας (2021/2042(INI)) (Α9-0259/2021)

  Andrius Kubilius, rapporteur. – Mr President, this report on the European Parliament recommendations on the direction of EU-Russia political relations is a report on a really important topic. Russia is an important country which has a big influence on all the developments in the Eastern part of the European continent and the EU needs to have a clear long-term strategy with clear goals and clear instruments for our policy towards Russia.

Our report is based on several clear principles. First of all, we want to have good relations with Russia, but it depends on Russia. With Russia, led by the authoritarian, kleptocratic and aggressive, both domestically and externally, Putin regime, it is impossible to have good relations. The Russia of today is the greatest threat to European security.

Second principle. We are making a clear difference in our attitude towards the Kremlin regime and towards Russian people and Russian society who are the first victims of such a regime. We are very critical of the Kremlin regime and very positive and optimistic about the future of Russian society.

Third principle. We are absolutely sure that, in the future, Russian people will live with a European-type democratic system of governance. If Ukrainians can do it, if Belarusians are striving for it, there is no reason why Russian people cannot go the same way. And we are absolutely sure that in the future the EU will have good and pragmatic relations with democratic Russia.

The report gives several clear recommendations to EU institutions on EU future policy towards Russia. First of all, to concentrate our efforts on a very clear long-term goal and how to assist the Russian people to transform their country back to democratic, European-type development. This is the first time the European Parliament has given such a clear direction on the major goal of EU political relations with Russia.

The report elaborates that the Strategy of EU political relations with Russia should have three major pillars: push back, contain and engage. It sounds in a very similar way like it was first declared by Vice-President Borrell, but in the report maybe we are bringing more precise and concrete content to those three pillars.

The first pillar, ‘Push back’. Push back against the Kremlin’s aggressive policies of today, both external and internal policies. Clear non-recognition policy of occupations and annexations in Crimea, South Ossetia, Donbas; more effective type sanctions which should be better coordinated with transatlantic partners, including sanctions against oligarchs; possibility of non-recognition of legitimacy of elections, if they are stolen; effective implementation of the Green Deal as an instrument to cut EU dependency on Russian gas, and so on.

Second pillar. Containment pillar. Sets out how to contain Kremlin hybrid influences and how to make EU clean and safe of Russia hybrid threats and corruption practices inside of the EU. If we want to help democrats in Russia to transform their country and to get rid of Kremlin autocracy, we need to make ourselves clean of Kremlin influences.

And the third pillar ‘Engage’. Engage not only with Kremlin, but engage strategically with civil society in Russia. Let us offer the Russian people a clear vision of what kind of relationship we’re going to establish between the EU and Democratic Russia – visa free, free-trade agreements, EU-Russia real modernisation partnerships, and so on and so forth. That is what we can do in the future. The Russian people need to know that transformation of their country will be beneficial to all of them who now are the first victims of their authoritarian and corrupt regime.

What else can we offer? Let us offer Russian people also inspiration and an example to follow. Much more ambitious EU support to make a success of the Eastern Partnership region, especially Association Trio countries: Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. Their success, built with more ambitious EU integration policy, could bring a real inspiration to the Russian people to follow a similar democratic way of development.

And the last point. As you know this weekend there will be elections to the State Duma in Russia, so-called elections. Lukashenko last year stole the election results after the elections. Putin is trying to steal them even before the elections have taken place. More than 100 of the most important opposition or independent candidates were not allowed to participate in the elections. Navalny is in prison, no OSCE observers are allowed to come. Our report recommends not recognising the Parliament of Russia as the legitimate parliament if the elections are recognised as being fraudulent and having been conducted in violation of democratic principles and international law.

That is why next week will be a test for all of us, and the EU institutions, not to be afraid to say that elections were organised in violation of democratic principles and international law, since even now there is a lot of evidence that this is the case.

Our report is a message to the Russian people: we are together with them. We need Russia as a good neighbour, with whom we can have good relations. We want the Russian people to enjoy the same human rights, the same rule of law and democracy privileges as we have and we enjoy. We want the Russian people to enjoy a modern and prosperous country. Such a development of Russia would be beneficial for Russian people and for the whole of Europe.

And the EU can do a lot to assist Russian people in such a transformation of their country. The EU needs to understand and accept its exceptional role and responsibility in such a transformation. And first of all the EU needs to overcome it’s ‘Westlessness’ as was diagnosed by the Munich Security Conference and Wolfgang Ischinger. Our report provides recommendations on how to overcome this ‘Westlessness’ in political relations with Russia.

The report was supported by a large majority and consensus among major political groups in the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET). Such unity is also a strong signal to the Kremlin. I hope that we will be able to keep the same unity here in the plenary. I would like to thank all the shadow reporters with whom it was a real pleasure to elaborate this important report.

  Josep Borrell Fontelles, Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, allow me to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Kubilius, and all the Members who have been working on this draft report, adopted by a large majority in the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET).

I think that the report describes accurately where we stand in our relations with Russia, which are more difficult than ever, building on the Joint Communication and the June conclusions of the European Council, although the debate in the European Council was mostly about ‘summit yes or summit no’ in the relationship with Russia.

I think that the deliberate policy choices of the Russian Government over the last years have been creating a negative spiral in our relations. The list of provocative actions by Russia is long and continues feeding a dynamic of escalation, which I regret because I have always been in favour of talking with everybody when we need to talk. It has become difficult and I have experienced that directly. Our discussion today is very timely because next week we are going to have next week the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, and it may be an occasion to engage again in talks with the Russian representative.

There is also the issue of the crackdown on Russian civil society and opposition. Ahead of this month’s Duma election, some of the priority actions that you identified in your report – support for civil society and their relentless efforts to defend democracy – remain as important as ever. The Russian regime is one thing but the Russian people are another thing, and we have to be with the Russian people, supporting their civil society.

On that, allow me to say that our unity should be our biggest asset in our relations with Russia because it’s clear that Russia wants to divide us. They say that clearly, they don’t care about European Union. They prefer to avoid it. They want to talk with a Member State directly and not with all of them, only with the ones that matter. So yes, certainly Russia wants to divide us and, in the face of any attempt to divide us, what we have to do is try to remain united, which is, believe me, not always easy.

In any case, Russia remains our largest neighbour and it remains an important global actor, although not from the economic point of view. Russia’s economy is more or less the same size as Italy’s, much bigger in surface area, but economically speaking, it is a medium—sized state. They have a lot of gas – and gas is becoming more and more expensive, which is good news for them and bad news for us – they have atomic weapons and they have an important army, and they use it when they need it. But, in any case, Russia will not disappear. It will be there and it’s not going to change overnight. So we should explore a path that helps us gradually to change the current dynamics into a less conflictual, more predictable and stable relationship. This is the work of diplomacy – with whoever – to try to work for a less conflictual, more predictable and stable relationship on the issues in which we are interested.

Let’s talk about Mr Navalny. I know that I went to Russia to express directly, in front of the Russian leadership, our concern about the situation of Aleksei Navalny when he was in front of the tribunal that condemned him, and since the assassination attempt on Mr Navalny we have held a number of discussions in the European Parliament, the Foreign Affairs Council and the European Council, but Mr Navalny remains in jail. So our collective ambition is not only to have a less conflictual relationship, but also to continue defending people like Navalny. Don’t forget him. Don’t forget the people who have been supporting him.

This has to be done by building on the implementation of the five principles which have given us purpose, an approach in which our interests and values can be defended. I want to remark here that the June conclusions of the Council are very clear, including the full implementation of the Minsk Agreement. In some days, we will go to Kiev to have the Association Agreement Council with Ukraine.

I would like to think of a new partnership with Russia but today it’s a distant prospect. Under the present circumstances, to take the full potential of a close cooperation with Russia is not on the radar screen. It’s a distant prospect. We must therefore look at the state of EU—Russia relations in all their complexities and at a realistic way forward. With this in mind, the European Council tasked me, as High Representative, and the Commission to prepare concrete proposals on how to take forward this multifaceted relationship, and we try to resume that with these verbs – three verbs that were mentioned by the rapporteur – to push back, to constrain and to engage.

I think these three verbs summarise well how we have to develop our relationship with Russia. To present options for additional restrictive measures, to develop options for engagement on areas such as climate, environment, selected issues of foreign and security policy, and multilateral issues like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), where I have to recognise that Russia is playing a constructive role on Syria and Libya.

The Russians are very much present in Libya and more and more in the Central African Republic, which is worrisome.

To this list we should add Afghanistan, where there is a need for increased cooperation, including as regards the regional approach after the takeover by the Taliban and its consequences for regional and international security allies. Russia will also be affected by the new situation in Afghanistan and is not going to be in a safe land with respect to the risk of widespread terrorism in the area.

Finally, we have to put forward people-to-people contacts and support civil society, human rights organisations and independent media. Such a thing exists in Russia, and we need to support them.

As you also rightly point out in your report, our reinforced cooperation with our Eastern partners and support for democracy remains at the top of the European Union’s interests. We cannot be an island of democracy in a world of autocracies. We cannot survive as a democracy if we are surrounded and in the middle of a world that has a different political system. It is in our interests that our system be shared by as many people and as many countries as possible. That’s what my services are trying to put forward. We are working on that and we stand ready to brief the European Parliament, the committees of the European Parliament, on all these issues.

So thank you very much for your work. Thank you very much for this report. This is a complementary work with one that we are doing. I thank the rapporteur and all the Members that have been working with you on it.

  Sandra Kalniete, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I would like to praise the excellent, relevant and incisive report done by Andrius Kubilius, as well as share his faith in the principle of democracy first, which must be the core of any EU strategy on Russia. At the same time, we must be realistic about the relationship we can have with Moscow in the near future.

In the span from my own 2019 report on EU-Russia relations until the report by Mr Kubilius, the Kremlin has only added more dark episodes to an extensive track record. To make it perfectly clear, there is no reason for optimism regarding the direction of the current Russian regime and of EU-Russia relations. European leaders must not fall again into naive delusions about resets or dialogues with Putin’s regime, which clearly shows that its disregard for international law, human rights and peaceful conflict resolution is not the exception, but the rule.

And finally, it is time for Europe to invest in reinforcing our commitment to the Eastern Partnership countries, strengthen our own resilience to Russian hybrid warfare and continue engaging with Russian civil society.

  Marek Belka, w imieniu grupy S&D. – Panie Przewodniczący! Unia Europejska w relacjach z Rosją potrzebuje nowego impulsu i zdecydowanych działań. Pięć lat po przyjęciu strategii wobec Rosji wydaje się, że nadal stoimy w tym samym miejscu. Rosja destabilizuje nasze bliskie sąsiedztwo, wpływa na procesy demokratyczne wewnątrz Unii, prowadzi wrogą propagandę, finansowo wspiera siły antyeuropejskie, fundamentalistów religijnych i ruchy anty szczepionkowe, znajdując przy tym niestety sprzymierzeńców w Unii. Ponadto hamuje pokojowe rozwiązanie konfliktu z Ukrainą i rozpala kolejne konflikty wokół naszych granic.

Powiedzmy otwarcie, Rosja nigdy nie traktowała Unii poważnie, raczej jako postmodernistyczny kaprys historii. Stara się nas dzielić, aby tym łatwiej realizować swoją politykę. Musimy się temu przeciwstawić razem, broniąc polityki Unii Europejskiej w zakresie obronności, energetyki, cyberbezpieczeństwa oraz broniąc naszych wartości. Jeżeli Rosja nie zrezygnuje z łamania prawa międzynarodowego, podminowywania naszej Unii, prześladowania mniejszości oraz sił demokratycznych w naszym najbliższym sąsiedztwie, musimy być gotowi sięgnąć po mocniejsze argumenty, takie jak wykluczenie Rosji z systemu rozliczeń Swift bądź zamrożenie europejskich aktywów osób związanych z Kremlem. Zawsze będziemy stali po stronie Rosji demokratycznej, wobec Rosji autokratycznej nie możemy być słabi i podzieleni.

  Bernard Guetta, au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, pourquoi sommes-nous si fiers de ce rapport? Pourquoi devons-nous en remercier Andrius Kubilius? Pour deux raisons – et une troisième.

La première est la fermeté avec laquelle ce rapport condamne les agissements, les méfaits du régime Poutine, aussi bien à l’extérieur des frontières de la Fédération de Russie qu’à l’intérieur.

La deuxième est la chaleur avec laquelle ce rapport tend la main de l’amitié et de l’espoir au peuple de la Fédération de Russie. Ce rapport a ajouté quelque chose de neuf à notre condamnation du régime Poutine. Ce rapport dit qu’au delà de ce régime, nous aspirons évidemment aux meilleures relations possibles et à la plus grande coopération imaginable avec un peuple qui partage le même continent que nous, la même culture et la même civilisation que nous.

Ce deuxième point est évidemment le plus important des deux points du rapport Kubilius. Parce que le premier, mon Dieu, nous le savions tous. Cela n’est pas nouveau dans notre conception et dans notre vision de la situation. Mais dire, comme le fait ce rapport avec cette force, qu’au delà du moment présent, un jour nous rebâtirons ce continent ensemble: là, il y a une nouveauté. Et là, surtout, il y a la certitude que M. Poutine et son régime ne sont pas éternels.

  Sergey Lagodinsky, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, heute beschließen wir den Russland-Bericht des Parlaments. Es ist nicht bloß ein Dokument unter vielen. Am Umgang mit Moskau entscheidet sich unsere europäische Politikfähigkeit.

Denn bisher gelingt es der Regierung im Kreml allzu gut, uns gegeneinander auszuspielen. Meine eigene Regierung in Berlin ist dafür das beste Beispiel: Die neueste Einigung mit den Amerikanern zu Nord Stream 2 – über die Köpfe der Ukrainer hinweg. Der letzte gescheiterte Versuch von Merkel und Macron, sich mit Putin zusammenzusetzen – über die Köpfe der Europäer hinweg. Es wird ständig etwas über die Köpfe anderer hinweg entschieden. Es geht ständig darum, eigene Interessen zu bedienen – aber nicht selbstbewusst und strategisch, sondern unterwürfig und kurzsichtig: Gas, Marktzugang, ein freundliches Lächeln aus Moskau.

Aber es geht auch anders. Und ja, es geht besser. Wir in Berlin müssen lernen, die deutschen außenpolitischen Interessen aus der europäischen Interessenlage abzuleiten. Wir müssen lernen, europäischer Politik-Treiber statt egoistischer Politik-Bremser zu sein: weniger Gasgeschäfte, mehr europäische Solidarität.

Und diese Solidarität, die haben wir jetzt so nötig. Denn die anstehenden Dumawahlen zeigen doch deutlich, dass der Kreml endgültig mit der Demokratie gebrochen hat. Das ist uns nicht bloß ein Ärgernis. Das ist ein gemeinsames strategisches Risiko. Und diesem Risiko müssen wir unaufgeregt, aber selbstbewusst entgegentreten.

  Jaak Madison, on behalf of the ID Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Kubilius for this really interesting report. This is a very important topic, as we saw with Mr Borrell, who left the chamber just before this debate.

First of all, I agree with many, many things in this report. I agree that Russia is a security threat to the neighbourhood countries. It’s a threat to Ukraine and Georgia, as well as the Baltic States – I’m from Estonia, so I know this very well. However, there are many things with which I just do not agree.

Firstly, this report says that we should give more power to the European Union to conduct relations with Russia. That would mean that Mr Borrell, as the High Representative for Foreign Affairs, should talk directly with Russia and represent the 27 Member States. We saw this a few months ago and it was embarrassing. So I would prefer Mr Borrell to not speak with Russia over our heads, over the Estonian head.

Secondly, I would like to ask how we are to go about organising the regime change mentioned in the report? How? At the same time as we are letting Russia raise its influence over our energy policy through Nord Stream 2, where there are deals made between Germany and Russia, at the same time as the economical impact is rising because we are trying to solve problems with Fit for 55 and climate change, we are just trying to organise regime change. Now when we are weak, when we are not supporting our defence systems. We are not paying for our defence and we don’t want to have more sovereignty over our energy and climate policy.

It’s a bit weird. So that’s why I have to abstain from tomorrow’s vote. I can’t vote against it, but I can’t support it either.

  Anna Fotyga, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, allow me to start with thanking Andrius Kubilius for his very important work. Certainly it is an important report and very important that we take this debate, and eventually, I hope, adopt this report, just a few days before elections in the Russian Federation, very questionable ones. I think that in this document we are going to send a very positive message of hope to our friends, the Russian opposition, people like the members of Memorial, long-standing supporters of values, like many imprisoned dissidents, just to name Mr Navalny, but others as well.

The High Representative / Vice President is right in saying that it is extremely important to keep our unity in the relationship to Russia, to resolve unity and lack of naivety in the assessment of, in particular, new methods used by the very vicious regime in the relationship to all of us. Hybrid methods are a kind of novelty and in this respect we have to collaborate very closely with organisations like NATO in the assessment of all threats that come from the Kremlin regime.

  Clare Daly, on behalf of The Left Group. – Mr President, EU-Russia relations are at their lowest ebb ever, and Parliament’s response is more, much more, of exactly the same thing – prevent Russia from developing relations with EU countries individually, ratchet up NATO, strengthen EU defences to deter Russia, sanctions and international investigations and so on.

This isn’t a serious, credible document. It’s actually a xenophobic rant. Much of the information is false, misleading and one-sided. We surround Russia with NATO bases and we call them the aggressor. We support opposition groups and we accuse them of foreign interference. The European project is not being undermined and divided by Russia, but by the rank hypocrisy that is characterised in this report, and the only beneficiaries of this nonsense are the arms industry made fat on the profits of its hysteria.

So would people ever calm down and cop on. We need to work diplomatically with our neighbours for a peaceful resolution of differences. Would you back off the Russia phobia. The last thing we need is a cold war turning into a hot one. We absolutely reject the report in its entirety.

  Milan Uhrík (NI). – Vážený pán predsedajúci. Európske sankcie proti Ruskej federácii trvajú už sedem rokov. Chcem sa vás tu na rovinu všetkých spýtať. Čo tieto sankcie reálne vyriešili? K čomu reálne pomohli? Okrem toho, že poškodili európskym firmám, okrem toho, že viedli k zvýšeniu cien energií, tak nevyriešili absolútne nič. Vážený pán eurokomisár, ktorý tu nie je, vážení kolegovia, vážení predstavitelia vlád. Podľa môjho názoru je najvyšší čas povedať to jasne. Už toho protiruského besnenia stačilo. Už naozaj stačilo. Je čas vydať sa cestou dialógu s Ruskou federáciou. Jej čas prestať počúvať Američanov. Európa je náš kontinent. Európa má právo rozhodnúť sa. Európa má právo rozhodnúť sa pre dobré vzťahy s Ruskou federáciou. V mene Slovenska apelujem a vyzývam, vydajme sa, prosím, cestou mieru a spolupráce. Nie cestou konfrontácie a zvyšovania napätia.

  Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz (S&D). – Panie Przewodniczący! Od ponad 20 lat polityka wewnętrzna i zagraniczna Rosji stawała się coraz bardziej brutalna i oparta na użyciu siły, początkowo wobec własnych obywateli, jak w Czeczenii, stopniowo także wobec innych państw. Próby odpowiedzi na pytanie o przyczyny takiego zachowania wskazywały na to, że poza siłą zbrojną Rosja ma bardzo ograniczone środki oddziaływania na zagranicę, że pan Putin robi to dla zdyscyplinowania społeczeństwa rosyjskiego i dla wzmocnienia osobistej popularności lub poparcia jego partii.

Nie odrzucając tych interpretacji, chcę wskazać na inną, chyba najważniejszą przyczynę. Rosja odbudowuje tradycyjne imperium i dąży do odtworzenia w maksymalnym stopniu dawnego ZSRR. Tam, gdzie można przy niskim ryzyku użyć siły, robi to – jak w przypadku Krymu. Tam, gdzie może osiągnąć swój cel bez użycia siły, robi to np. przez uzależnienie gospodarcze i polityczne jak w przypadku Białorusi.

Rosja jest zainteresowana osłabieniem otoczenia i zahamowaniem lub zablokowaniem zbliżenia dawnych swoich terytoriów z Zachodem. Utrzymanie licznych zamrożonych konfliktów służy temu celowi. Agresja dezinformacyjna przeciwko nam ma osłabić Zachód, podobnie jak korumpowanie państw, partii i polityków. To, co było tylko możliwością, jest rzeczywistością. Jest to bardzo groźne działanie, długotrwale destabilizujące sytuację wokół Rosji, zwiększające ryzyko konfliktów, także zbrojnych. Zrozumienie tego faktu jest konieczne również po to, by nasze koncepcje stosunków z tym krajem były pozbawione naiwności.

  Urmas Paet (Renew). – Mr President, when we speak about EU-Russia relations we cannot forget the conflicts and the Russian military presence in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. For example it has been now 13 years since the Russian invasion of Georgia, where the Russian occupation forces have engaged in an illegal military build-up and so-called borderisation; undertaken kidnappings and illegal detentions; continued closure of the occupation line.

The Russian Federation needs to cease its illegal actions directed against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia, but also Ukraine and Moldova, and implement international obligations and withdraw its military forces from the territory of these countries. It is up to the European Union to give a clear signal that our policy will not change until Russia starts to respect international law, and the territorial integrity of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine is restored within their internationally recognised borders.

  Markéta Gregorová (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, ever since Mr Borrell’s unfortunate visit to Moscow, a clear, strong stance on EU’s relations with Russia and Mr Putin has been awaited. In today’s ever-changing security environment, the EU either needs to talk with a unified voice or to cross out the word ‘common’ from its foreign and security policy.

Russia has increased its interference via disinformation campaigns that seek to undermine our society. Crimea and Georgia are still stripped of their territorial integrity. We see an abuse of surveillance tech, and we stay silent while Putin silences opposition, as in the case of Aleksei Navalny.

Such acts go against EU values. If we want to uphold our values – let alone our security – it is essential to set out clear conditions for any future engagement with Moscow in trade, in sanctions, in human rights.

I hope we can agree on this report today, as our credibility lies in our unity.

  Anna Bonfrisco (ID). – Signor Presidente, signor Alto rappresentante Borrell, onorevoli colleghi, questa proposta è un buon esempio di come possiamo costruire l'autonomia strategica aperta.

Pertanto La invito a costruire ponti di diplomazia. L'Unione europea, l'Unione economica euroasiatica e l'Organizzazione per la cooperazione di Shanghai condividono una vasta area di sviluppo: l'Eurasia. E non dimentichiamo il Forum economico orientale, che connette l'Artico al Pacifico.

Consapevoli di un tale interesse strategico per l'Europa, non ci stanchiamo di cercare il dialogo e di persuadere la Russia che promuovere la pace, la giustizia e i diritti fondamentali è la strada giusta ed è soprattutto la pietra su cui poggia da secoli la gloria russa: la cristianità.

Convincere la Russia che le sfide poste dalla Cina sono più pericolose rispetto a quelle poste dall'Occidente sarà la nostra linea di azione politica.

  Witold Jan Waszczykowski (ECR). – Mr President, once again today, I would like to appeal for realism in our policy, not to be naive. Russia is not part of the solution, it’s in most cases part of the problem. The Russian Federation creates problems and plays the role of honest mediator, honest broker.

It’s also an illusion to think that we can change and democratise Russian society. This nation was built in the last three centuries, towards imperialistic direction and goals. One generation is not enough to reverse the process. We have to try, and I thank Mr Kubilius for trying. However, the more pending question is to slow down and stop Russian imperialists, to press Russia to cease its illegal action against Georgia and Ukraine, influence Russia to stop supporting Lukashenko’s hybrid action against our part of Europe.

It is not an appeal to solve the abovementioned problems together with Russia, it is to force Russia to stop harming these countries.

  Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE). – Señor presidente, considero excelente este informe de mi amigo y compañero Andrius Kubilius.

Estamos, claramente, con el régimen de Putin, ante un régimen autoritario y represivo. Tenemos un vecino incómodo, que se comporta a la vez como socio comercial, competidor agresivo y, a menudo, como enemigo de la paz, la estabilidad y la unidad de nuestra Unión. Seguridad energética, refuerzo de nuestras capacidades de defensa y sanciones selectivas contra el entorno de Putin y sus colaboradores son clave. El Kremlin solo respeta a los fuertes.

En cuanto a las injerencias rusas y la guerra híbrida, el texto incluye numerosas referencias a las injerencias en asuntos domésticos, y los españoles no somos ajenos. Recientemente, The New York Times denunciaba un documento explicando cómo colaboradores del señor Puigdemont, diputado de esta Asamblea, buscaron en el Gobierno ruso apoyo para sus proyectos de ruptura de la unidad de España.

Seamos conscientes de que los enemigos de la democracia en Europa, en España —en este caso, Rusia—, buscan constantemente socios y aliados entre nosotros para destruir este proyecto europeo, y se apoyan en movimientos y partidos que quieren la división de nuestros Estados miembros.

Me gustaría, finalmente, expresar mi apoyo a la enmienda 31 del Grupo socialista y mi deseo de que en España el Gobierno socialista mantenga ese mismo sentido de Estado y defensa de la unidad.

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo (NI). – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, c'è una crescente tensione tra quello che è la Russia di Putin di oggi, una Russia obbligata a politiche sempre più autoritarie per mantenere il controllo, e il paese reale che invece sembra sempre più pronto a voltare pagina.

I giovani russi oggi osservano i loro coetanei nel resto d'Europa e non riescono a capacitarsi delle limitazioni a cui invece devono sottostare, delle repressioni verso la società civile, della mancanza di libertà di parola e dei media, della censura di Internet e, ancora, della crescente e dilagante corruzione. È a loro che dobbiamo parlare, perché il presente di oggi non è il futuro della Russia e, anche se a qualcuno piacerebbe pensare diversamente, non lo sarà mai.

Onorevoli colleghi, anche lo scoglio più imponente è consumato dalle onde incessanti del mare. Il tempo e la Storia sono dalla nostra parte, i nostri valori di libertà, democrazia e rispetto dei diritti umani parlano per noi. Dobbiamo continuare a mettere in campo tutti gli strumenti disponibili per interfacciarci e per sostenere la società civile della Russia, con i giovani, con le donne e con gli uomini che sognano un futuro diverso, mostrando loro che c'è un'alternativa e deve esistere un'alternativa.

Alienando la propria popolazione, togliendo la libertà a cui ogni essere umano anela, il regime di Putin ha già perso, solo che non se ne è ancora reso conto.

  Tonino Picula (S&D). – Mr President, it’s nothing new if we say that our relations with Russia are at a very low point, in short: energy over-dependence, divergent policies of the Member States’, direct interference in political processes and Russia’s very active role in disinformation campaigns. So we need to increase the resilience of the EU and its partners in the Eastern Neighbourhood against Russian disinformation and interference; ensure that Russia is implementing the Minsk Agreement; engage with Russian civil society more strategically, despite the regime’s evermore determined efforts to undermine any such engagement; besides carefully used selective engagement on urgent global challenges to generate progress on the other objectives.

But we also must be realistic in our ambitions of democratising Russia as implied in this document. We should rather not keep falling into a political trap, further narrowing space for our political actions. Instead, we need a new, comprehensive, more strategic EU joint strategy towards Russia that will finally enable us for a more proactive approach.

  Michal Šimečka (Renew). – Vážený pán predsedajúci. To, čo európska politika voči Rusku dnes potrebuje asi najviac, je realizmus. Je jasná predstava o tom, kde sú v tom vzťahu naše záujmy, kde sú hrozby a čo vieme realisticky dosiahnuť dialógom s Moskvou, alebo čo nevieme dosiahnuť. A nemá naozaj zmysel postaviť európsku politiku voči Rusku na démonizácii Putina alebo Rusov. Ale rovnako nemá zmysel postaviť ju na naivnej viere, že Moskve dnes záleží a má úprimný záujem na dobrých vzťahoch s Európskou úniou a rešpekt medzinárodnému právu, lebo nemá. A realizmus nám hovorí, že Rusko robí a naďalej bude robiť kroky na oslabenie našich demokracií, našej jednoty, našej bezpečnosti a suverenity našich partnerov. A preto našou základnou povinnosťou je brániť sa. Brániť naše záujmy, naše demokratické inštitúcie proti štátnemu terorizmu, proti politickej destabilizácii, špinavým peniazom alebo proti kyberútokom. Tými nástrojmi, ktoré dobre popisuje táto správa. Samozrejme, hľadajme oblasti, kde môžeme s Rusmi spolupracovať. Pripravujme sa na postputinovu éru, ale stratégiu musíme postaviť na realite, ktorá sa tak skoro nezmení.

  Filip De Man (ID). – Voorzitter, in deze aanbeveling staat dat Rusland integraal deel uitmaakt van het Europees continent, dat er sterke historische banden bestaan en dat Rusland een van onze grootste handelspartners is. Redenen genoeg dus om zo’n buurland diplomatisch te benaderen. In plaats daarvan dreigt men echter met bergen sancties. Rusland wil zich niet plooien naar de links-liberale dogma’s – zo ook Polen en Hongarije – en daarom worden alle duivels losgelaten.

Europa zou er beter aan doen een goede verstandhouding na te streven. Het gaat om een reusachtig land met enorme voorraden grondstoffen. Met een verstandige aanpak zouden we met onze technologie en onze financiële middelen een formidabele economische samenwerking kunnen opzetten die beide partijen ten goede zou komen. Men doet echter liever zaken met bijvoorbeeld fundamentalistische golfstaten of het communistisch regime in Peking. Wat een hypocrisie en domheid!

  Hermann Tertsch (ECR). – Señor presidente, es difícil decir si es posible para la Unión Europea tener unas relaciones normalizadas con la Rusia de Vladimir Putin y, sin embargo, tenemos que intentarlo.

Este informe dice muchas cosas y muy duras y muy ciertas. Llevamos 20 años demostrando que Putin no es fiable. No respeta el Derecho internacional ni las convenciones ni, por supuesto, los derechos humanos, ni dentro ni fuera de Rusia: desde los asesinatos de miembros de la oposición o el encarcelamiento de Navalny a la invasión y anexión de Crimea; desde las operaciones de desinformación con Puigdemont y separatistas catalanes a las agresiones a Ucrania o provocaciones al Báltico.

Son muchos los obstáculos, hoy por hoy insalvables, que ponen al presidente Putin en unas relaciones que podrían ser y deberían ser mucho más intensas y beneficiosas para ambas partes.

La Unión Europea ha de ser firme y estar unida frente a la Rusia de Putin. Por eso, son condenables iniciativas que dividen, como la egoísta aventura alemana del North Stream II.

A un tiempo, la Unión Europea debe insistir en esa cooperación con Rusia, porque Rusia seguirá ahí cuando Putin acabe, esa Rusia cuyo futuro no puede ser convertirse en la reserva de materias primas para China. Necesitamos en Rusia un cooperador para el futuro y de alguna forma tenemos que hacerlo.

  Traian Băsescu (PPE). – Domnule președinte, de acord cu nevoia de cooperare cu Rusia, subliniată în raport. Dar până la cooperare trebuie să constatăm că Rusia a ocupat prin forță teritorii a trei state asociate Uniunii Europene. Rusia desfășoară campanii virulente de dezinformare în toate statele Parteneriatului estic, dar și în state membre UE. De pe teritoriul Rusiei, se lansează frecvent atacuri cibernetice împotriva obiectivelor din state membre UE și NATO. Prin concentrarea de resurse militare în Crimeea și Kaliningrad, Rusia este o amenințare directă și explicită la securitatea Uniunii.

Adesea, Rusia utilizează gazele exportate în Uniune ca pârghie de influențare a deciziei politice. Strategia noastră de reducere a dependenței energetice față de Rusia este o hârtie fără valoare, atâta timp cât North Stream devine o realitate. Rezultatul dependenței noastre de importurile de gaze din Rusia este că Rusia face ce vrea la frontiera estică a Uniunii și atunci care sunt pilonii politicii noastre externe unitare față de Rusia? Eu nu știu.

  Sven Mikser (S&D). – Mr President, we must not abandon hope and we must seek cooperation with those in Russia who share our core values, so that one day we can have a constructive partner in Moscow. In the meantime, we must admit that there are certain key differences between our world outlook and value system and those of the current Russian regime. This sets limits on how trusting our relationship can be.

Let’s work our way, so to say, from inside out. First, the way Russia treats its own people – Russia’s human rights record – is ugly. It’s treatment of dissidents and political opposition is truly horrible.

Second, the way Russia disrespects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its closest neighbours is in contravention of international law and contrary to the EU’s special security interest.

Third, and most importantly, we must consider the way Russia keeps interfering in our internal affairs, be it by supporting radical populist parties, be it under the guise of protecting the so-called traditional values, or be it by promoting conspiracy theories aimed at undermining Europeans’ trust in our democratically elected institutions.

So yes, we need to work with Russia on common challenges, but we must always remain sober, alert and situationally aware.

  Maximilian Krah (ID). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kollegen! Herr Kollege, dieser Bericht, den wir hier vorliegen haben, ist eine Kriegserklärung eines Kalten Krieges. Er ist in Tonfall und Inhalt aggressiv, und er lässt keine Möglichkeit einer konstruktiven Kooperation mit Russland zu.

Das mag die Mehrheit hier so wünschen, aber Sie haben nicht die Mehrheit der Bürgerinnen und Bürger hinter sich. In Deutschland haben drei Viertel der Wahlberechtigten in einer Umfrage erklärt, dass sie hinter Nord Stream 2 stehen. Und das ist in den anderen Ländern nicht anders.

Diese Russophobie, die hier gepflegt wird, hat keine Wurzeln in den Bevölkerungen, und sie ist darüber hinaus auch von Doppelstandards geprägt. Wir reden über Herrn Nawalny, einen hochproblematischen Rassisten. Aber wieso redet niemand über Herrn Medwedtschuk, den Oppositionsführer in Kiew, der unter Hausarrest steht? Der eine darf eingeknastet werden, der gewählte Parlamentarier, und der andere, mit Wirtschaftsstraftaten, nicht. Das können Sie nicht erklären, genauso wenig, wie Sie Ihre Russophobie erklären können.

Und deshalb werden wir weiter daran arbeiten, Frieden durch Verständigung, durch Verständnis und durch Diplomatie zu erreichen – auch wenn wir damit in der Minderheit sind. Klares Nein zum Bericht.

  Dace Melbārde (ECR). – Priekšsēdētāja kungs! Es Eiropas Parlamentā pārstāvu Latviju, kas atrodas Krievijas tiešā ģeopolitiskā tuvumā. Un mūsu vēsture mums diemžēl māca nelolot naivas ilūzijas attiecībās ar Krievijas autoritāriem režīmiem.

Izmantojot dezinformāciju un citas hibrīdiejaukšanās formas, arī šobrīd Krievija — Kremlis — pastāvīgi iejaucas mūsu valsts iekšpolitikā un cenšas šķelt mūsu sabiedrību, tajā skaitā Putins aktīvi atbalsta Baltkrievijas diktatoru Lukašenko, tostarp tā īstenoto hibrīduzbrukumu, kas šobrīd ciniski organizē migrantu plūsmas uz Latviju, Lietuvu un Poliju.

Neatkarīgu mediju stiprināšana ir viena no atbildēm Kremļa manipulācijām. Eiropas Savienība ir spērusi pirmos soļus visaptverošas mediju politikas izveidē, un es esmu pārliecināta, ka tās ietvaros mums ir jāizveido spēcīgs Eiropas Mediju fonds. Pienācīgs atbalsts neatkarīgajiem medijiem ir nepieciešams gan Eiropas Savienības iekšienē, īpašu uzmanību pievēršot tām valstīm, kas robežojas ar Krieviju, gan arī Austrumu partnerības valstu un Krievijas brīvajiem medijiem, jo šādi ir iespējams atmaskot Putina autoritāro režīmu un stiprināt cerību Krievijas un arī Baltkrievijas tautās, ka pārmaiņas ir iespējamas.

  Александър Александров Йорданов (PPE). – Г-н Председател, колеги, поздравявам колегата Кобилюс за неговия доклад. Той представя дългосрочна стратегия за отношенията ни с Руската федерация. Особено важно е, че в него се прави разграничение между режима в Кремъл и руските граждани. Важни са и направените в доклада препоръки към Комисията и Съвета.

Днес няма по-голяма заплаха за европейската сигурност и ценности от режима на Путин. Моята България, например, отдавна е обект на руска хибридна атака. Затова и в момента страната е в политическа криза, в дестабилизация и хаос. Президентът и неговото служебно правителство налагат методи на управление, характерни за режима в Кремъл. Предстоят трети поред, само за половин година, парламентарни избори. Колеги, призовавам ви да подкрепим доклада, за да докажем, че сме отговорни към нашия Съюз, към днешните и бъдещи поколения на Европа и Русия.

  Pierfrancesco Majorino (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il pessimo livello dello stato delle relazioni politiche tra l'Unione europea e la Russia è un dato eclatante che non possiamo negare e con cui bisogna evidentemente fare i conti, affrontando con la dovuta nettezza anche le conseguenze.

Da tempo l'Unione, i suoi processi democratici e quelli dei suoi Stati membri sono sotto attacco con più o meno evidenti tentativi di interferenze da parte di potenze straniere: la Russia è una di queste, forse la più esplicita, e ha trovato anche in Europa complici politici disposti a sostenerla, complici che siedono pure in quest'Aula.

Stiamo giustamente maturando consapevolezza rispetto a ciò, occorre però anche mettere in campo tutti gli strumenti necessari a difesa dei nostri valori e della nostra democrazia.

Ora dobbiamo fare di più, dobbiamo rafforzare decisamente il rapporto con quella società civile russa che, tra mille difficoltà, prova oggi a costruire spazi di alternativa e di democrazia, promuove la libera informazione e i diritti civili, lotta contro ogni discriminazione. Essa, questa parte di Russia, deve essere il nostro alleato.

  Gunnar Beck (ID). – Herr Präsident! Dieser Bericht wirft Russland vor, die eigene Einflusssphäre auszubauen, die westliche liberale Demokratie zu diskreditieren, Völkerrecht und LGBT-Rechte zu missachten und, man horche, die eigenen nationalen Interessen zu verfolgen. Vielleicht ist es Teil der EU-Klimapolitik, politisch neue Eiszeiten auf den Weg zu bringen. Eine Rezeptur für bessere Beziehungen zu Russland ist der Bericht kaum.

Bedenken Sie bitte: Wer assistierte der NATO seit 20 Jahren bei ihren postliberalen Kreuzzügen vom Atlantik bis zum Hindukusch? Wer finanziert westliche NGOs in Russland? Und wer intervenierte völkerrechtswidrig im Irak und in Libyen? Wer anders als die EU und ihre Mitglieder? Verglichen mit Russland allerdings ziemlich erfolglos. Afghanistan lehrt: Russland lernt aus Fehlern – die EU nimmermehr.

Puhetta johti HEIDI HAUTALA
varapuhemies

  President. – Good evening, dear colleagues. Before continuing with the debate, I will now move to the results of today’s voting session.