Doors Open, Minds Ajar
The question of whether relations between Russia
and Europe can ever pull out of their nosedive was posed - somewhat boldly - at the symposium “BRICS – Europe”,
held at the Sirius federal territory and organized by the International
Movement “The Other Ukraine,” Russia’s United Russia party, and the Institute
of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
In today’s climate, the title “BRICS – Europe”
sounded, at the very least, provocative
- perhaps even naïve. Apart from Belarus, which holds a partner status,
no continental European country maintains stable political ties with BRICS.
European governments prefer selective, transactional contacts - mostly with China and India - and even then, under Beijing’s Belt and
Road Initiative or New Delhi’s independent diplomacy, not under the BRICS
umbrella. “Brand BRICS” remains, for now, little more than decorative
packaging.
Dialogue with Russia, meanwhile, has been steadily
eroding. Nearly all EU member states - except
Hungary and Slovakia - appear on
Moscow’s list of “unfriendly nations.” Grand concepts of the early 2000s, such
as “Greater Europe” and “A Single Space from Lisbon to Vladivostok,” have been
filed away - somewhere between nostalgia
and mythology.
Washington has been busily contributing to the
intellectual climate. U.S. President Donald Trump declared BRICS “an
anti-American alliance,” warning it aims to undermine Western dominance in
economics and global governance. Western media enthusiastically followed suit,
ensuring no American guests appeared at the symposium.
Europe, for its part, did not perform much better.
Members of Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland initially announced their
intent to attend, only to face public pressure and accusations of being Kremlin
agents - some from their own colleagues.
One by one, they opted to stay home, where being “patriotic but cautious” is
safer than “curious but radioactive.”
Given this atmosphere, one might assume that
building bridges between Europe and the Global South is both futile and
politically hazardous. But those who accepted the invitation to Sochi - politicians, academics, and civic leaders
from several European states - did not
share that opinion. One reason: the hosts, while critical of Brussels, made a
point not to overplay anti-European rhetoric or indulge in ideological
grandstanding.
Vladimir Yakushev, Secretary of the General Council
of United Russia Party, clarified the party’s stance: Russia supports
respectful and equal dialogue even with politicians from “currently unfriendly”
European states. The message was diplomatic but pointed: Russia is not slamming
doors - it is merely noticing who
prefers to keep them shut.
Pierre de Gaulle, head of the Pierre de Gaulle
Foundation for Peace, went a step further: if Europe persists on the path of
confrontation, he warned, it will build its own new Iron Curtain - not to keep Russia out, but to wall itself
in. He expressed hope that one day, “reconsidered” European countries - including France, Germany, and Italy - might even join BRICS.
No one in Sochi mistook this for a forecast. Pierre
de Gaulle, like his famous grandfather in the 1940s, speaks from outside the
establishment. His influence is limited to segments of French public opinion
that still view Russia not as a threat, but as an alternative. That describes
almost all “alternative voices” from Europe at the symposium.
There were, however, exceptions - politicians from neutral European states
working both for domestic agendas and European dialogue. One example: Hungarian
MP László Toroczkai, leader of the Our Homeland party, used his visit to hand
United Russia Chairman Dmitry Medvedev a letter requesting that the rights of
ethnic Hungarians and Rusyns in Transcarpathia be included in future
negotiations on Ukraine. Budapest had been ignored by both Kiev and Washington - so Toroczkai tried Moscow.
The symposium did not, and could not, fix a decade
of accumulated political fractures. That was never the objective. The aim was
to test whether Europe has any politically responsible actors left - capable of dialogue rather than
denunciation.
Seen in that light, BRICS – Europe was less
a destination than a prelude - to
something broader, perhaps “BRICS – Eurasia.” The idea gained subtle
support from Yakushev, who noted that United Russia is actively involved in
promoting the president’s initiative to form a common security contour on the
Eurasian continent - based on equality
and indivisibility.
One possible foundation for such a long-term format
is the “Eurasian Charter of Multipolarity and Cultural Diversity in the 21st
Century,” proposed by Belarus and supported by Moscow as an alternative to
the now largely ceremonial Helsinki Accords of 1975. BRICS founding members
have shown interest - making credibility
less of a problem than Brussels’ readiness.
BRICS now surpasses the G7 in combined economic,
demographic, and resource base - enough
to become more than a club, perhaps even a venue for pragmatic bridge-building.
United Russia, by virtue of its capacity for inter-party networking, sees
itself as one of the “connecting mechanisms.”
But no architecture
- whether of security, diplomacy, or economics - can be built one-handed. For bridges to be
built, Europe must at some point decide it wants to cross them. Not through
unofficial delegations and lone parliamentarians, but at least through
individual states or ruling political parties willing to acknowledge that
dialogue is not treason.
Until then, the doors are open. On the Eastern side
of the continent, at least.