EU-Russia: Destruction as creation

The EU's ‘restrictive measures’ as an answer to Crimea and Sevastopol entering the Russian Federation included the closure of paramount communication channels, such as the EU-Russia Summits and visa ban for 33 influential figures - measures leaving little hope of a negotiated outcome to the Ukrainian crisis. On such a reduced communication level, how to exchange views to reach rapprochement?

The very concept of a 'black list' as a tool to influence Russian policy was pioneered by the EU in the context of the notorious Magnitsky case, when his former employer Bill Browder pointed to the Achilles heel of Russian corrupt officials allegedly responsible for Sergei Magnitsky's death  - unlike the Communists, ‘new Russians’ enjoy the acquisition of property, recreation, sightseeing, shopping, in brief, having a good time in Europe.

Therefore, the ban on entry and freezing assets can be an effective measure in creating discomfort for corrupt lovers of luxury. The European Parliament discussed and compiled various lists, targeting officials to enhance an objective investigation into Magnistky’s murder in a prison cell. Although the MEPs' initiative enshrined in a Resolution didn’t reach further instance, namely the Council, the experience remained vivid.

However, the blueprint of the targeted measures in the Magnitsky case mechanically applied to the top figures in the Russian political ‘beau monde’ within the Ukrainian crisis, is the most eloquent example of the limitation of comparativism – one can’t confuse the incomparable. If in the Magnitsky affair the visa bans were imposed on the personalities that nobody wanted to talk to, in the Ukrainian crisis the influential Russian officials who should have been engaged in political debate were excluded. A totally counter-productive move!

The 33-list was officially brought into the picture via an initiative from High Representative Catherine Ashton. It includes people who, according to the establishment she leads, are responsible for "undermining and threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence" of Ukraine, an approach shielding the individual member states against Russian ire. According to European diplomats, the proposals of the black-list personalities behind these initiatives are 'sensitive' information and shall not be disclosed. One can only guess which countries put forward the idea of banning EU entry to the speaker of the Russian Duma, Sergei Naryshkin, a gesture to champion the most shortsighted move in the history of diplomacy.

This is the very same Naryshkin whose refusal to come to the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE), under the pretext of its ‘Russophobic’ tendencies, caused "disappointment" for its president Jean-Claude Mignon, who expressed his regret, saying "it takes two to hold a dialogue”. Much ink was spilled to put the speaker to shame, blaming him for an attempt to avoid the questions of 65 European legislators in the assembly, who listed the questions to their Russian counterpart. Naryshkin faced accusations of boycott and negligence of his prime responsibility of keeping up communications with the international communit - his high public status does not allow him to remain silent.

Now, the EU 'blacklist' has been enlarged with the names of the Duma’s other prominent members, and even the head of the state news agency Russia Today.

Similar status personalities being banned from entering a country would be seen by the West as a violent offensive on democracy and the rule of law, as parliaments and the press are defined as pillars of democracy.

The current bans on 33 are limited to half a year, under the EU's monitoring conditions, but  irrespective of further collisions the damage done to the co-operation of East and West will last much longer than six months. However, the passion for destruction of Ashton's diplomats can be understood by Russians - as their own anarchist philosopher Bakunin claimed "destruction is creation".

Anna van Densky

Share this article: