What if Russia is called a state promoter of terrorism – Pierre Haski

With an overwhelming majority – 494 votes in favor, 58 against and 44 abstentions – on 23 November the European Parliament defined Russia as a “state that promotes terrorism” and a “state that uses terrorist methods”.

Evidently this opinion will not dissatisfy the inhabitants of Kiev, subjected on November 23 to a deluge of Russian missiles that deprived them of electricity and running water, nor even those of Zaporizhzhja, where a newborn baby died due to the destruction of a maternity ward. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky understandably cheered at the news of the vote.

The question is not so much about the reality photographed by the resolution, in a context in which new war crimes are added every day to a long list that has been growing steadily for nine months, but rather the usefulness of this gesture and its consequences, but also the opportunity (if not the need) to one day negotiate peace with Russia.

Looking for a solution
In foreign policy, the resolutions of the European Parliament are exclusively recommendations: they do not represent an imposition either for national governments or for the European Commission, and the states of the Union are not required to apply them.

So far only the national parliaments of the three Baltic states – Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia – have voted on a similar resolution. Others have shown some reticence, including the United States, where Joe Biden has refused to use this formula.

The hesitation does not arise from a desire to minimize the extent of the crimes committed by the Russian army, but from an attempt not to tie hands in the search for a solution. With a state “promoter of terrorism” one does not talk, one fights it. But to end a war, in the absence of a total victory of one side over the other, negotiation is needed.

At stake is the diplomatic negotiation, and specifically its timing and its object. Today it is evident that there is no room for negotiation: the Ukrainians are not willing to stop after the enormous sacrifices, while Putin, as Moldovan president Maia Sandu explained, does not believe at all that he has lost the war.

Yet the traces of the negotiation have not disappeared. We found them again last week in Washington, with the declarations of General Mark Milley, US Chief of Staff who invited the Ukrainians to consolidate their successes at the diplomatic table.

Even in the absence of short-term prospects, precluding the possibility of speaking to Putin would be a mistake, as Emmanuel Macron reiterated on November 23, declaring that he would telephone the Russian president to talk about the Zaporizhja nuclear power plant. The French president believes that dialogue, which has so far been unsuccessful, remains necessary in any case.

By defining Russia as a “state promoter of terrorism”, the European Parliament respects its role, expressing, among other things, a sentiment widely shared by European public opinion, disgusted by the images of Russian atrocities. But this moral stance is not easy to translate into diplomatic acts by states.

(Translation by Andrea Sparacino)