Why did the Russians react so decidedly against the EU trade agreement?

To understand why Russia was so angry about the EU's trade agreement, one should review the document. In TitleII Article 7 the initialed contract includes a passage on security. Of course Putin was alarmed. The eu was playing with fire. If they really wanted that contract, they would have had to station troops on the Eastern boarder of Ukraine before the Russians saw the contents.
European Union - EEAS (European External Action Service) | EU-Ukraine Association Agreement – the complete texts

Article 7
1 The Parties shall intensify their dialogue and cooperation and promote gradual convergence in the area of foreign and security policy, including the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), and shall address in particular issues of conflict prevention and crisis management, regional stability, disarmament, non-proliferation, arms control and arms export control as well as enhanced mutually-beneficial dialogue in the field of space. Cooperation will be based on common values and mutual interests, and shall aim at increasing policy convergence and effectiveness, and promoting joint policy planning. To this end, the Parties shall make use of bilateral, international and regional fora.

2. Ukraine, the EU and the Member States reaffirm their commitment to the principles of respect for independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of borders, as established in the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and to promoting these principles in bilateral and multilateral relations.

3. The Parties shall address in a timely and coherent manner the challenges to these principles at all appropriate levels of the political dialogue provided for in this Agreement, including at ministerial level. Link.

Click to expand...

I think the prospect of NATO missile shields and troops right on Russia's border was more of a concern, that and the possible slipping away of Sevastopol - even if the Black Sea is a Russian pond when compared to other strategic territory where naval forces could be utilised. Russia would be more concerned about NATO submarines being stationed permanently so close whereas Russian ICBM submarines in the Black Sea would pose less threat than any sitting off American or western European shores.

Remember that Germany (under Merkel) has been the most vocal in slowing Georgia's accession to NATO as she was concerned how this would play in Russia. I hardly think Germany was proposing any European military policy with Ukraine.

Infinite Chaos said:

I think the prospect of NATO missile shields and troops right on Russia's border was more of a concern, that and the possible slipping away of Sevastopol - even if the Black Sea is a Russian pond when compared to other strategic territory where naval forces could be utilised. Russia would be more concerned about NATO submarines being stationed permanently so close whereas Russian ICBM submarines in the Black Sea would pose less threat than any sitting off American or western European shores.

Remember that Germany (under Merkel) has been the most vocal in slowing Georgia's accession to NATO as she was concerned how this would play in Russia. I hardly think Germany was proposing any European military policy with Ukraine.

Click to expand...

Yes. Germany slowed the process and the window of opportunity to do it without a show of force passed for Ukraine and Georgia. That is why it was so irresponsible to play the hand the way the EU played it. If you wait too long, you need another approach. What is especially interesting is that the German government has a formal forum for regular dialog with the Russian government. How could they have missed the implications of Article 7 and the reaction it must provoke. The dialog is specifically to avoid this kind of brouhaha and desaster.

joG said:

To understand why Russia was so angry about the EU's trade agreement, one should review the document. In TitleII Article 7 the initialed contract includes a passage on security. Of course Putin was alarmed. The eu was playing with fire. If they really wanted that contract, they would have had to station troops on the Eastern boarder of Ukraine before the Russians saw the contents.
European Union - EEAS (European External Action Service) | EU-Ukraine Association Agreement – the complete texts

Click to expand...

It had not much to do with the agreement it self, but with politics and influence. Ukraine is seen as part of the Russian sphere of influence .. at least by Russia, and by entering an agreement with the "biggest rival" in the area, then that influence would diminish. Add to that the links between EU and NATO and you have a problem of NATO moving closer and closer to the Russian border, something the Russians dont want.

On top of that, there was ultimately the whole Sevastopol issue, which was at the core of everything. Russia could not afford to lose that port at any cost, even war. By allowing Ukraine to enter a trade deal with the EU, aka the west, then Ukraine would have some political protection and be on the road to possible EU membership. This could embolden the neo-nazi nationalist to carry out their threats of seizing Sevastopol and ripping up the deal with Russia on access.

PeteEU said:

It had not much to do with the agreement it self, but with politics and influence. Ukraine is seen as part of the Russian sphere of influence .. at least by Russia, and by entering an agreement with the "biggest rival" in the area, then that influence would diminish. Add to that the links between EU and NATO and you have a problem of NATO moving closer and closer to the Russian border, something the Russians dont want.

On top of that, there was ultimately the whole Sevastopol issue, which was at the core of everything. Russia could not afford to lose that port at any cost, even war. By allowing Ukraine to enter a trade deal with the EU, aka the west, then Ukraine would have some political protection and be on the road to possible EU membership. This could embolden the neo-nazi nationalist to carry out their threats of seizing Sevastopol and ripping up the deal with Russia on access.

Click to expand...

Though much of what you say is absolutely right. The bureaucrats and politicians in Brussels and the member nation als must have known that. Why Germany has a formal plattform for discussion with Russia. Did they just ignore, what that combined with Title II, Article 7 of the contract meant? I mean Putin knew the slippery way Europeans go about these things and what they intend, when they talk of deeper union or greater harmonization of the economies or mutual security. Why did the EU neglect that point? It is right in your face, if you knew anything about the players? I really don't know, but it seems astoundingly irresponsible, even should the EU be able to incorporate the rest of Ukraine because of the kerfuffle.

joG said:

Though much of what you say is absolutely right. The bureaucrats and politicians in Brussels and the member nation als must have known that.

Click to expand...

Of course they did, but they are only acting on behalf of the Americans. America knows that it has very little influence in the area, and what influence that it does have will be seen as an aggression. So they are using the EU as a proxy in their never ending battle against the Russians.

Why Germany has a formal plattform for discussion with Russia. Did they just ignore, what that combined with Title II, Article 7 of the contract meant? I mean Putin knew the slippery way Europeans go about these things and what they intend, when they talk of deeper union or greater harmonization of the economies or mutual security. Why did the EU neglect that point? It is right in your face, if you knew anything about the players? I really don't know, but it seems astoundingly irresponsible, even should the EU be able to incorporate the rest of Ukraine because of the kerfuffle.

Click to expand...

As I said the EU is just the vessel, the real party behind it is the US and NATO. They are using the EU as a trojan horse and trying to get the kid, aka Ukraine, into the car by promising them candy.. aka closer ties and economic benefits. By getting the Ukraine closer to the EU, and hence the US, then it means that the Russian Black Sea Fleet is in danger of losing its only winter port. This is a massive military strategic disadvantage to Russia and a huge plus to the US and its dominance on the seas. Remember you are only a world power when you can project your power via your fleet.. the US does it, the British Empire did it and the Spanish Empire did it. The Russians and Chinese want to do it, so they have invested a lot, but unlike the Chinese, the Russians have one massive Achilles heal... only one winter port, aka Sevastopol.

Do I sound paranoid... well considering that it is the NATO Sec General that is the defacto spokesman for the "West" and not an EU spokesman, then well....

PeteEU said:

Of course they did, but they are only acting on behalf of the Americans. America knows that it has very little influence in the area, and what influence that it does have will be seen as an aggression. So they are using the EU as a proxy in their never ending battle against the Russians.



As I said the EU is just the vessel, the real party behind it is the US and NATO. They are using the EU as a trojan horse and trying to get the kid, aka Ukraine, into the car by promising them candy.. aka closer ties and economic benefits. By getting the Ukraine closer to the EU, and hence the US, then it means that the Russian Black Sea Fleet is in danger of losing its only winter port. This is a massive military strategic disadvantage to Russia and a huge plus to the US and its dominance on the seas. Remember you are only a world power when you can project your power via your fleet.. the US does it, the British Empire did it and the Spanish Empire did it. The Russians and Chinese want to do it, so they have invested a lot, but unlike the Chinese, the Russians have one massive Achilles heal... only one winter port, aka Sevastopol.

Do I sound paranoid... well considering that it is the NATO Sec General that is the defacto spokesman for the "West" and not an EU spokesman, then well....

Click to expand...

Now you have really surprised me.

Of course it is a problem that the Russian fleet is at the underbelly of Europe just as the Europeans' dependence on Russian oil is a problem. If you are dependent you cannot act independently. Why didn't Germany listen to Putin and give him cause to take Ukraine?

It was an EU decision to go out and negotiate that contract to include the basis for a military pact that had push Russia into action. Did Germany not warn the other members?

Or do you think it was the evil Americans? That they made Schultz and Barroso a proposal they couldn't refuse?

joG said:

Now you have really surprised me.

Of course it is a problem that the Russian fleet is at the underbelly of Europe just as the Europeans' dependence on Russian oil is a problem.

Click to expand...

Its gas not oil, and the Europeans can get gas/oil from elsewhere where as the Russians have a massive problem as a huge portion of its income comes from selling to Europe.

It was an EU decision to go out and negotiate that contract to include the basis for a military pact that had push Russia into action. Did Germany not warn the other members?

Click to expand...

No the Ukrainians reached out. At worst you can claim that the EU is doing NATO's and the US bid in expanding western influence all the way up to the Russian border. There is a reason that the US pressed for the Baltic states to become members of the EU as fast as possible...

Or do you think it was the evil Americans? That they made Schultz and Barroso a proposal they couldn't refuse?

Click to expand...

The Americans are not evil, but yes it is part of the over all global political fight between the US and everyone else. Despite the NSA scandal, and the falling popularity in European nations when it comes to the US, the US and Europe are allies and have many of the same goals. One of those goals is to keep Russia in check, and one way of doing that is weakening them whenever possible. Deny them a winter port and they are hugely weakened and their ambitions world wide are hit hard. And that is what it is all ultimately about, regardless of how it is achieved.

Russia has been rising in political and economic power ever since Putin came to power many moons ago. Now they have done it by exporting gas and oil, and criminal enterprise. The west has watched as this has happened and over the last decade they have started to take steps to curb this rise in power.

A good example was the whole Cyprus crisis. That was specifically designed to hurt Russia and Putin as much as possible, by taking whatever money the Russians had left in Cyrpus... most of it from illegalities. That weakened Putin at home and abroad.

Another example is Syria... like it or not it Syria as a multi-regional-national conflict. It is not a war between Assad and rebels.. it is a war between Assad and rebels.. the west and Russia, moderate islamists vs radical islamists, the US/west against islamists and so on and so on. The fact is that, the reason the Russians are defending Assad is not because they like him, but because Syria has the only port where Russian Black Sea Fleet can feel safe in the med.

There is always some political aspect that nations and governments are trying to hide by throwing out words like genocide, mass murder and terror... their true motives are not always promoted by the media or in general.

Now on the Eastern Ukraine, there is no clear motive for Putin to go in.. in Crimea it was clear, but ignored. Now the only thing I can think of is that Putin wants to weaken Ukraine as much as possible as long as he cant control it. He can do that by either taking or controlling via proxy the industrial heartland of Ukraine.. aka the east. On the flip side, the west with the US at its head wants a pro western Ukraine that is economically viable and willing maybe in the future to have western troops stationed there, right next to Putin's Russia. It is clear that this the motive since the west is clearly sleeping with the devil (aka the ultra nationalist neo nazi) to gain influence...

Basically it is one big mess.

PeteEU said:

Its gas not oil, and the Europeans can get gas/oil from elsewhere where as the Russians have a massive problem as a huge portion of its income comes from selling to Europe.

Click to expand...

True. I should have written Energy and it is Gas that is problematic, because the Docking facilities for LNG are costly and take time to build. But it is that time that makes one dependent. Knowing that you will not freeze in two years is fine, but in the long run...
And the Problem of not being able to find takers is not much of one. The Chinese have been banging loudly on the door and there has been quite a discussion in enrgy markets whether or not the Russians would/could deliver the amount of Ges the Germans/Europeans want.

PeteEU said:

European nations when it comes to the US, the US and Europe are allies and have many of the same goals. One of those goals is to keep Russia in check, and one way of doing that is weakening them whenever possible. Deny them a winter port and they are hugely weakened and their ambitions world wide are hit hard. And that is what it is all ultimately about, regardless of how it is achieved.

Russia has been rising in political and economic power ever since Putin came to power many moons ago. Now they have done it by exporting gas and oil, and criminal enterprise. The west has watched as this has happened and over the last decade they have started to take steps to curb this rise in power.

A good example was the whole Cyprus crisis. That was specifically designed to hurt Russia and Putin as much as possible, by taking whatever money the Russians had left in Cyrpus... most of it from illegalities. That weakened Putin at home and abroad.

Another example is Syria... like it or not it Syria as a multi-regional-national conflict. It is not a war between Assad and rebels.. it is a war between Assad and rebels.. the west and Russia, moderate islamists vs radical islamists, the US/west against islamists and so on and so on. The fact is that, the reason the Russians are defending Assad is not because they like him, but because Syria has the only port where Russian Black Sea Fleet can feel safe in the med.

There is always some political aspect that nations and governments are trying to hide by throwing out words like genocide, mass murder and terror... their true motives are not always promoted by the media or in general.

Now on the Eastern Ukraine, there is no clear motive for Putin to go in.. in Crimea it was clear, but ignored. Now the only thing I can think of is that Putin wants to weaken Ukraine as much as possible as long as he cant control it. He can do that by either taking or controlling via proxy the industrial heartland of Ukraine.. aka the east. On the flip side, the west with the US at its head wants a pro western Ukraine that is economically viable and willing maybe in the future to have western troops stationed there, right next to Putin's Russia. It is clear that this the motive since the west is clearly sleeping with the devil (aka the ultra nationalist neo nazi) to gain influence...

Basically it is one big mess.

Click to expand...

At least there there is a lot we agree on.

But having said that, we are back to the EU's introduction of Article 7 into the agreement, knowing it would provoke Russia, as in fact it did, without making sure that Russia couldn't do, what it has done. That was either totally dumbo or it was taken into a calculation. So which was the profit that the EU got out of Putin's grabbing Crimea?