Gerhard Schroeder and German-Russian Relations: Keep Russia Close, But Not Too Close
By Courtney Doggart
MIA 2009
At Monday night’s Gabriel Silver Memorial Lecture, Former Chancellor of Germany, Gerhard Schroeder, gave his brief thoughts on German-Russian relations. In the short speech, Schroeder stressed the importance of a stable Russia to the world, and in particular, to Europe. Using the framework of a multi-polar world, Schroeder discussed possible scenarios of global power distribution. In every scenario it seemed that Russia’s geopolitical leanings had a large effect. Should Russia look East, or South to Central Asia, Pakistan and India, the balance of power would again shift. Time and again, Schroeder mentioned the need to keep Russia close to Europe. In stressing Russia’s importance to Europe and the fact that “Russia sees itself as a European country,” Schroeder seemed to be pressing the point that Europe, in fact, needs Russia’s resources and residual power.
Where did things get interesting? In the Q&A, of course, where the first question was about Schroeder’s endorsement of Turkey into the EU and whether Schroeder sees such a possibility for Russia. Did he? Definitely not.
The moral of the story? Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer (especially if they supply you with roughly 25% of your energy). Just don’t invite them to live with you.
Related Posts
- Medvedev Blogging
- Europe’s Gas Opera
- The Booth and Beyond: The Global Impact of the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election
- Sarah Palin is Totally and Completely Insane
More from this author
- The Morningside Post is Seeking New Editors
- Featured Blogger for February 2009: Kevin McCaffrey
- The Conflict in Congo: Violence Against Women and What We Can Do About It
- Single Malt Scotch: SIPA Students Taste the “Aqua Vitae”
Subscribe to this author
But would you accept an invitation of your enemy to live with them? Schroeder’s reputation in Germany has suffered a lot from his engagement with Russian energy company Gasprom and his ignorance towards Russia’s poor democracy. From an European perspective his statement actually seems to be rather self-defensive than convincing.
Agreed– to a certain extent. Schroeder’s engagement with Gazprom, and his current Chairmanship of Nord Stream’s shareholder’s committee, definitely puts him in a position to be nice to Russia and overlook Russia’s democracy problems. However, the completion of Nord Stream will create yet another avenue for Russia gas exports to Europe.
While Schroeder himself can be accused of openly consorting with the Russians, it seems that his remarks were more reflective of the European conundrum. With Russia’s size, resources and nuclear capacity immediately next door, Europe seems loathe to let Russia out of their grasp and into strategic partnerships with potential global heavyweights and others– India, China, Pakistan, Central Asia. Yet, they are certainly not ready to embrace Russia– as they probably shouldn’t.
So, yes, Schroeder was probably on the defensive, but his remarks, I believe, reflect the general European conflicted attitude towards Russia and that was what I wanted to call attention to.
Schroeder is in Putin’s pocket. His SPD party for years received campaign financing from Gazprom. Now he’s on Gazprom’s payroll. Perhaps some are unaware that Gazprom is a Russian statal company. It’s Chairman is none other than Dmitri Medvedev, the Russian Deputy Premier, whom Putin just picked to be Russia’s next president.
As for Schroeder’s view that the Europeans should do more to keep Russia close, the Europeans do nothing but try to appease the Russians. But Putin’s new policy of studied belligerence and anti-democratric abuses at home have made it impossible for even the most obsequious European (except perhaps Schroeder himself) to overlook the fact that Russian foreign policy has become dangerous and no longer fits with Europe’s perception of its own security interests.
Schroeder is a hired corporate shill, pimping Putin’s petro-message. He has no credibility, unless you think hiring yourself out to a dictator is an honorable calling.
Informative post and good comments.
I’m not sure where the Russian/EU relationship will be in 5 years or 10 years, let alone 15 or 20 years. What I will predict is that the American/EU relationship will continue (with sporadic up-ticks) on a downward slope over the next decade – perhaps precipitously over the next 15 or 20 years.
What concerns me is how best to “manage” Russia. While it is neither in Russia’s longterm interest nor within that nation’s historical character to develop a solid axis (or if you’d rather a less charged term, “alliance”) with China, stranger things have happened throughout human history. The current “cooperation” between what is emerging more and more as a Russia sliding into what may become long-term totalitarianism and China is *NOT* in the US national interest and if sustained will present a worst-case scenario.
The US/European relationship is destined to become more and more adversarial, both economically hyper-competitive and ultimately militarily and diplomatically adversarial. Not tomorrow. Not next week, next month, or next year. But over time.
If a Russia/China axis is our worst case scenario, then a Russia/EU alliance in a tri-power future (a China-centric sphere of influence, a US-centric sphere of influence, and a (greater?)-European sphere of influence) is the next worst case scenario for us.
Yeah, yeah… Putin’s NOT a nice guy. Got it. Don’t care. My overriding concern is AMERICA and our national interests. This national interest – IMHO – includes retaining our ultimate superpower dominance… if not necessarily our status as “hyper-power – which creates unnecessary tensions of its own.
To reiterate, I’m not sure exactly how events and alliances will sort themselves out 15 year or more into the future, but US policy should be focused on building a mutually beneficial and perhaps even to an extent co-dependent relationship with Russia as a counter to both future Europe and China AND we must concentrate on retaining our south Pacific and south/east Asian alliances and economic partnerships.
Last… though it’s my fear that this administration and WHOMEVER follows it and WHOMEVER follows them is and will be too damned stupid and short-sighted to realize this… any competent US foreign policy would also place a strong emphasis on retaining and STRENGTHENING our Cold War forged bond with Turkey. (Don’t get me started on how frigg’n STUPID Bush has been in this regard…)
Anyway… that’s my two cents worth to add to this thread.
BILL
To Mr. Barker, I’m not at all convinced by the premise of your first point, that US and European relatons will proceed along a steep downward slope over the next decade. Surprising, perhaps, but those relations turned somewhat better during Bush’s second term (when Bush made efforts to mend the bridges he’d burned in his first term). European democracies, like the US, are cyclical. And if Gordon Brown is somewhat less enthusiastically pro-US than Tony Blair, then Sarkozy is more cooperative than Chirac. And to the extent that Bush himself and his policies have thrown poison into the trans-atlantic well, and particularly with European publics, then his passing from the scene in 2009 augurs an improvement in longer-term relations.
Frankly, your Russia-China scenario sounds like thoroughly discredited notions from the 1960s. I won’t say that’s a crackpot theory, but…
As for your confession that you “don’t care” about Putin’s dictatorial tendencies because you can only be bothered to focus on US interests, it surprises me that someone’s view of US interests –particularly someone engaged enough to follow this website– doesn’t incorporate the notion that Russian belligerence, human rights abuses, sham elections, border tensions, and antagonism towards the US and its allies somehow don’t impact US interests. Don’t quite know how to respond except to say that I disagree profoundly.
However, I do agree with your Turkey point. And your punctuation is pretty good.
“I’m not at all convinced by the premise of your first point…”
Fair enough. Let’s meet back here in 20 years and revisit my premise. (*WINK*) (*SMILE*)
“…those relations turned somewhat better during Bush’s second term…”
It has little to do with Bush. Oh, sure, Bush got under the Europeans’ skins PERSONALLY, but there are deep seated and GROWING perception gaps between America and most Western European nations’ citizenry. (*SHRUG*) More and more the basic “world views” of Americans (especially Republicans, but also moderate to conservative Democrats) clash at basic points… basic premises… with those of most Europeans.
“…if Gordon Brown is somewhat less enthusiastically pro-US than Tony Blair, then Sarkozy is more cooperative than Chirac.”
You’re missing my long term point. You’re focusing on present day personalities in leadership positions. I’m talking basic principles and means to ends – I’m talking about social/economic/political trends and where I see splits of THOUGHT on crucial issues growing longterm, not shrinking longterm. Time will tell. (*SHRUG*)
“Frankly, your Russia-China scenario sounds like thoroughly discredited notions from the 1960s.”
(*SMILE*) We’ll see… won’t we?
“I won’t say that’s a crackpot theory, but…”
(*CHUCKLE*) No… of course you wouldn’t SAY that… (*GRIN*) (*WINK*)
“As for your confession that you “don’t care” about Putin’s dictatorial tendencies…”
Actually, Rich… (*SMILE*)… if you go back and re-read my entire post you’ll note the following statement which was made PRIOR to the line you focus on. So, to reiterate… “What concerns me is how best to “manage” Russia.”
Also… just to be fair and get the context straight… (*SMILE*)… IMMEDIATELY following my comment that “Yeah, yeah… Putin’s NOT a nice guy. Got it. Don’t care,” was the qualifying and explanatory sentence, ” My overriding concern is AMERICA and our national interests.”
Although you’re free to pick and choose when quoting me, Rich… unless all you’re interested in is scoring debate points you really should acknowledge the overall context of those quote within the general thrust of the message. (*GRIN*)
Anyway… thanks for the exchange of views! Hope to chat with you again. (*WINK*
BILL
P.S. – Oh… and before you or anyone else ask… the whole (*WINK*) (*SMILE*) (*GRIN*) etc. thing is simply my posting style. I do it to amuse myself as well as to (hopefully!) take a bit of the edge off of my sometimes “confrontational” (o.k., condescending, obnoxious, judgmental, know it all…) online (o.k., real life too!) personality.
(*WINK*) (*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*) (*CHUCKLE*)
“Schroeder is in Putin’s pocket. His SPD party for years received campaign financing from Gazprom.”
Very, very questionable, I’d be pretty interested in some kind of evidence. Besides the fact that calling Putin a dictator doesn’t exactly contributes to having a serious discussion. Yes, politics and company interests are not separated here – but that’s rather the rule than the exception (see Dick Cheney).
Daniel, thanks.
Links between Russian energy interests and German party coffers have been both rumored and reported since Schroeder was in office. Nobody has been convicted, but given the way Schroeder left office and immediately went to work for Putin’s Gazprom, and the way the SPD that is now in the grand coalition continues to advocate an appeasement policy towards Russia –over the objections of Merkel’s CDU and of the rest of the EU and NATO allies– I’m not alone in seeing clear indications of Russian influence in German party politics.
I’m calling Putin a dictator in the the technical and accurate sense that Putin rules absolutely and oppressively. He meets the textbook criteria for a dictator. Among the institutions he controls is Gazprom, Russia’s huge statal gas company that employs Gerhard Schroeder. Can’t think of any way to make that clearer, but it is certainly an element in any ’serious discussion’ of Russian politics.
You may well be right that Dick Cheney mixes national politics and commercial interests, and that would be an interesting discussion for another day.
Is there a video or transcript of Schroeder’s appearance online anywhere? Thanks.