Cameron: Beziehungen zwischen EU und Russland ‚sollten positiver sein’[en] 

The NATO summit in Bucharest has shown that Europe can easily be divided on whether Ukraine and Georgia should be put on track for NATO membership. How would you comment?

Russia is a master of "divide and rule", but so are other countries, including the United States and China even. So it's up to the European Union to get its act together to provide a much more united front on some of the key issues vis-à-vis Russia and to understand that we are in fact pretty strong vis-à-vis Russia, we have a lot of leverage vis-à-vis Russia, particularly on issues like visa policy, on the single market and on assistance to Russia for diversifying its economy, which is a priority of the Russian government. We really have to understand that we are pretty strong compared to Russia and not allow ourselves to be divided by Russia. 

But Europe is not taking advantage of this due to individual approaches. Think-tanks such as the EU-Russia Centre have been calling for more unity, but is this possible? 

Yes, it's possible. I think the trend now is towards the member states recognising that they are much stronger acting together and trying to do bilateral deals. You are never going to exclude bilateral deals, but you are basically much stronger negotiating with Russia or any other country as part of 500 million citizens of the European Union than trying to do anything on your own. 

The EU and Russia sometimes have common positions. Can this be a basis for a fresh start? I am referring to the fact that Moscow and Brussels are in favour of a more important role for the United Nations and that they are against unilateral actions.

Yes, Russia is generally being quite supportive of calls to strengthen and reform the multilateral institutions. I think it was quite clever of the Russians to put forward a Czech candidate to be the next president of the IMF as opposed to the French candidate Dominique Strauss-Kahn. I think that we have to try and seek out areas of cooperation with Russia on the multilateral side as well as on thematic issues - whether it's terrorism, WMD or the environment. We have to find as many areas of common ground as possible. 

What has changed in the last year since Peter Mandelson said EU-Russia relations were at their lowest level since the end of the Cold War?

I think he was slightly exaggerating and certainly relations were pretty bad when Putin made this famous speech in Munich, but if you compare what he was saying last week in Bucharest and also in his farewell meeting with Bush, the tone was quite different. There were areas of difference, but both agreed that the Cold War was over, both agreed that they should be working towards common solutions on missile defence and other issues and therefore I think it is important to change the tone, change the rhethoric and be much more positive about what can be achieved together. 

Yes, but Europe often delivers an ambiguous message. Saying on the one hand that the interests of Russia should be taken into account and then speaking against a return to the spheres of interest on the other, for example. 

I think it's really a question of mentality. The current generation finds it extremely difficult, obviously, to deal with the collapse of the Soviet Union, with the collapse of communism, almost overnight, so it takes a long adjustment period. So it's really a question of a new generation having to come into power and recognising that a country like Ukraine and Georgia, even the Baltic states, are sovereign states and have to be treated as such. The current generation is still quite dismissive of that attitude. 

Western diplomacy with Russia is often criticised, with US policy described as clumsy and EU policy as weak. But in a similar vein, the Russian diplomacy could be described as hysterical.

Yes, the Russian diplomacy is a mixture between sometimes very good and very bad, as is their hysterical reaction to missile defence, to the memorial statue in Tallinn and so on. They still think they have a 'droit de regard', that they should still basically be allowed to interfere in the domestic affairs of these countries. A good example is Putin's support for Yanukovic in the elections in Ukraine a couple of years ago, which was really counterproductive. There has to be a change of mentality in Moscow, but the more one can strengthen Ukraine, Georgia and other countries, the better this would actually be. 

Maybe one reason why the EU and Russia cannot concentrate on how to develop relations is that both are undergoing deep mutation processes? 

Yes, there is an element of truth in that. The EU has been looking very much internally for the past several years, particularly with the failure of the Constitutional Treaty, while Russia has been trying to deal with its serious internal problems, but they still have a long way to go. Now there's a new opportunity with the new leadership in Moscow to start afresh. It won't be easy, it won't be a dramatic change, but if we both approach the relationship from the positive "What can we do together?" and in the mutual interest fashion, that should be sufficient to move the relationship away from the rather negative position it is in now. 

In early 2009 we will hopefully have a President of the EU. In the meantime, should EU leaders rush to embrace Mr. Medvedev individually or spend time agreeing on a joint strategy with Russia?

Obviously the EU should agree on a joint strategy with Russia. We must first give time to Mr. Medvedev to get his feet under the table. Secondly, we have to say "Look, we support your agenda". He says he wants to introduce the rule of law and an independent judiciary. He wants to reduce state interference. He wants to reduce corruption, and these are all things that we can support him in. Let's give him time and let's say "If you want to move in these areas, the EU is your best partner". 

As a matter of fact, Mr. Medvedev's election was not a 'real' election. Or at least, the EU stated that the election process in Russia did not allow for truly competitive elections. 

Obviously it was not really an election, it was an appointment. As soon as Putin had selected Medvedev as his successor, it was clear what the result would be. Having said that, there seems to be a lot of support in Russia for this kind of "managed democracy" at the present time, whereby people seem to prefer stability and economic growth rather than, as they see it, the chaos under Yeltsin in the 90s. But you can certainly have economic growth with greater democracy. 

Putin's mistake is - and this is why history will not be so very kind to him - is that he had a great opportunity to keep moving Russia along a more democratic path. He enjoyed very favourable economic conditions with the oil prices rising all the time, but he went back on the genuine democratic freedoms Russia enjoyed in the 1990s, and I think for that reason one has to be rather critical about his time in office. 

We'll also remember Putin for his use of energy as a political weapon. But Putin is leaving a Russia which needs massive investment in the next generation of gas fields and pipelines. How do you expect the situation to evolve? 

Russia has no alternative but to look towards the EU for the technology, investment, know-how, etc to diversify its economy, including to reinvigorate the energy sector. The question is: Are the conditions Russia has imposed until now, [including the stipulation that] there can be no majority shareholding by a foreign company in any strategic sector, is that reliable, or can be there any further movement here to give Western companies greater involvement? 

I think there is a poker game going on, because the European Commission has now introduced this concept of reciprocity so that for example Gazprom cannot buy downstream in EU markets unless there is a further opening for EU companies upstream in Russia. I think that the two sides are obviously very interdependent. Gazprom gets over 70 per cent of its profits in the EU markets. They will need to reach a modus vivendi here, but that will be the subject of pretty tough negotiations in the new PCA agreement that is going to start very soon. 

Are the Russian sovereign funds a matter of concern for the EU? 

No, not at the present time, I think. They have not attempted to buy into any strategic assets, they are taking very limited stakes in some companies and the European Commission and the national governments are watching this. But there is no evidence at the moment that these sovereign funds are being used for any nefarious purpose. 

But these funds sometimes are chanelled through screen companies… 

Sure, Russia uses a lot of shell companies, operating in Cyprus for example, but I think there is enough oversight of what is going on, including by the European Commission, that there is no immediate danger, shall we say. 

Are the prospects of Russia joining WTO better today? 

Yes, it was reaffirmed in Bucharest that the target date is the end of this year. Well, there is a debate in Russia about the merits of Russia joining the WTO, but I think ultimately the Russian leadership recognises that joining the WTO is a sign of acceptance on the international stage. 

Can Putin be more or less happy at the end of his term? 

I think he can probably be happy, but if you look at the Russian neighbourhood, where do they have friends? Russia is surrounded by countries which basically have antagonistic views towards Russia, perhaps with the exception of Kazakhstan. So the diplomacy of Russia has not been particularly effective, I would say, in terms of operating in this immediate neighborhood.

Was China more successful in its transition? 

It's different. China obviously took fright at what happened in 1990s Russia when they saw the Party disintegrate and as they see it, the chaos that followed. I think an unwritten deal between the Chinese Communist party and the population is "Look, we provide you with economic growth, but you don't get involved in politics". Rather similar to Putin's strategy. The problem is how long can you continue to loosen the economic ties, because obviously there is no sign of communism any more in China, or indeed in Russia. China is a very capitalist society now, how far can you go on that track and still maintain the one-party system? It's a very key issue: five years, ten years? Nobody can tell you when it will actually crack. 

What is your concluding message on EU-Russia relations? 

The key message is that the EU must be far more confident in its strengths in dealing with Russia and recognise that speaking with one voice, although it is difficult in some areas, is likely to produce far greater benefits than trying to cut bilateral deals.