This policy brief examines the evolving relationship between the European Union and the Russian Federation, focusing on the 1997 Partnership and Cooperation Agreement as the foundational framework for bilateral dialogue. The paper surveys the major policy areas covered by the Partnership — including foreign and security policy, economic cooperation, and the four Common Spaces agreed at the 2005 Moscow Summit — identifying where progress has been made and where structural obstacles remain. Drawing on diplomatic statements, academic analyses, and official EU documents, the brief outlines two broad future scenarios: a scaled-back, issue-limited engagement or a more assertive approach pressing Russia toward democratic and economic reform. The paper concludes that sustained dialogue is indispensable for both parties regardless of the path chosen.
The relationship between the Russian Federation and the European Union remains one of the most consequential bilateral arrangements in contemporary international affairs. EU-Russia relations represent an important issue because of the influential role Russia plays in the EU's immediate neighborhood and as a global actor. Under these conditions, sound relations with Russia are essential for the EU to pursue the strong, coherent foreign policy it has envisioned through its internal policy initiatives.
This policy brief aims to weigh the possible solutions available to European and Russian diplomacy in light of the latest developments between the two parties. To provide a comprehensive view of potential scenarios, it is first necessary to outline the background of the EU-Russia dialogue and the major issues that have defined years of continuous negotiation — particularly since the signing of the 1997 Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. The analysis focuses on the major policy levels under discussion between the two sides, which represent the most important dimensions of ongoing negotiations for an extension of that Agreement. The policy recommendation section then examines each level and proposes possible solutions.
The central aim of the policy analysis is to examine the background that has led to the current state of affairs between the European Union and Russia. The general assessment does not characterize the evolution of contacts as either good or bad, but rather as relationships that urgently require a positive step forward. The 2007 renegotiation of the 1997 Partnership and Cooperation Agreement is thus crucial for the continuation of EU-Russia relations, given that the original Agreement required outcomes to be considered only from the perspective of mutual gain. Cooperation and dialogue must therefore be strengthened, along with both the direct and indirect channels of collaboration across the various levels of discussion.
The European continent has undergone a series of significant changes throughout the years. From the two world wars it experienced to the Cold War that marked the division between West and East, the twentieth century represented a time of enormous challenge. The European Union is now engaged in fulfilling its founding role of uniting Europe under a shared set of values, norms, and beliefs, though the ultimate scope of that project remains a matter of ongoing debate.
The history of EU-Russia relations is relatively recent, given the turbulent evolution between the two parties in the preceding decades. One of the most significant arrangements between them is the 1997 Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, which established the official basis for dialogue. The Agreement is "founded on shared principles and objectives, namely the promotion of international peace and security, support for democratic norms as well as for political and economic freedoms" (the European Union, 2006). According to the official document, the general guidelines of EU-Russia relations are designed to create a strong political dialogue framework, to improve conditions in trade and the market economy, and to provide an environment in which Russia's democratic aspirations could eventually be realized (European Commission, 1997).
The defining document also established dialogue mechanisms to enable both parties to act in a consistent and periodic manner toward the Agreement's goals. At the level of heads of state, regular meetings are held to foster high-level talks. The Permanent Partnership Council allows ministers from different policy areas to interact and address issues on the agenda. Meetings with the European Troika are also essential for building political dialogue among senior decision-makers. A framework for parliamentary contact exists through the Parliamentary Cooperation Committee. Although these mechanisms were established by the Agreement, serious doubts remain as to whether they have been used to their full capacity.
The relationship between the European Union and the Russian Federation is in some respects considered uneven, and notable for the limited concessions and cooperative initiatives it has produced. To substantiate this assessment, it is necessary to examine the most important areas of cooperation addressed in the EU-Russia dialogue.
One of the principal areas of dialogue has been European Foreign and Security Policy. To strengthen the EU-Russia connection, "The Common Strategy on Russia" was adopted in 1999. However, it did not reflect a coherent or unified approach to Russian relations, because divergent opinions exist within the European Union regarding the appropriate level of engagement with the Russian Federation. Nonetheless, the relationship with Russia is considered vital for the credibility of the European Security and Defense Policy, given that "Russia is in this context in a unique position vis-à-vis the EU, as the only major global actor which is also a direct neighbor" (Vahl, 2006, p. 6). The European Union worked to build a broader dialogue framework at the Lisbon European Council in 1992, when Russia was designated as a priority partner, though efforts at that time were limited in scope and treated as a secondary matter.
Even after the signing of the 1997 Agreement, EU-Russia relations were perceived as a complementary yet non-essential element of European foreign policy. This was reflected in the financial aid Russia received from the European Union over the years, which was comparable to that provided to other former CIS countries. By comparison, "In the 1995–2002 period, EU aid commitments to the countries of the Balkans were on average 246 euros per capita, to the Mediterranean partners 23 euros on average, while 7 euros per capita was allocated to Russia, slightly below the CIS average of 8 euros per capita" (Vahl, 2006, p. 10). The fact that Russia nevertheless pursued WTO membership with considerable effort indicates that its standing in the European forum was, in practice, somewhat limited.
The 1997 Agreement did, to a certain degree, alter the relationship between the two sides. It signaled the willingness of both Russia and the EU to collaborate more closely and strengthen ties in the most important policy areas. Unlike other CIS countries, Russia benefited from a framework that permitted periodic discussions and the maintenance of a degree of ongoing contact — something that would have seemed unimaginable during the Cold War.
In terms of security, there were specific factors that complicated agreement on cooperation. During the 1990s, the new international order following the Cold War was uncertain and in disarray: neither Europeans nor Russians could determine the direction in which the balance of forces would settle. Additionally, the growing threat of terrorism — both internal and external — became increasingly urgent following the 2001 attacks on the United States, at which point deeper security cooperation was widely considered necessary. A further factor was the acknowledged weakness of the Russian Federation in defense and military capacity. Studies concluded that "at the start of the new century Russia faces indeed a multilevel social, economic, demographic, and political crisis, all of which exacerbate Russia's vulnerability to destabilizing international trends. Putin's main conclusion is that these circumstances dictate a policy of deep engagement of Russia in the international community" (Lynch, 2003).
In terms of outcomes, military and defense cooperation has known both advances and setbacks. The institutionalized relationship did succeed in bringing the two sides together for consultations during the Balkan crisis and on the question of the Iraq war. However, practical breakthroughs have been limited, as most discussions have ended in declarative commitments without defined timelines for implementation. The European Union has been reluctant to offer substantial economic incentives to a struggling Russian Federation, while Russian opposition forces arguing against westernization have dampened enthusiasm for deeper partnership. Both parties, though formally engaged, have acted in ways that discourage genuine progress.
The stalemate has manifested in several prominent instances. One was the 2004 EU enlargement process, which Russia largely opposed: "Russia has transmitted an unpublished but much-publicized list of 14 technical complaints in relation to EU enlargement, while Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov published an implicit reply to the Commission at a more strategic level" (Emerson and Kobrinskaya, 2004). For its part, the European Union has consistently raised concerns about Russia's increasingly troubling policies toward neighboring states such as Moldova, Belarus, and Ukraine. In this context, it is highly unlikely that the partnership as outlined in the 1997 Agreement could move forward without significant changes.
There are, however, particular areas under the Partnership where cooperation has been more readily achieved. The economic dimension has traditionally been seen as easier to advance given the financial interests both sides hold in a globalized economy. Bilateral trade agreements on steel and textiles have been maintained and monitored. Moreover, at the Moscow Summit in 2005, leaders agreed on a comprehensive package of measures to complement the Agreement. The official statement declared that "The overall objective of the CES is the creation of an open and integrated market between the EU and Russia. The aim is to put in place conditions which will increase opportunities for economic operators, promote trade and investment, facilitate the establishment and operation of companies on a reciprocal basis, strengthen cooperation in the field of energy, transport, agriculture and environment, reinforce economic cooperation and reforms, and enhance the competitiveness of the EU and Russian economies" (the European Commission, 2005). This broadened the scope of the agreement and gave new impetus to enhanced cooperation.
The Common Economic Space includes measures aimed at eventually integrating the Russian economic space through the elimination of barriers, encouragement of non-discriminatory practices, free competition, transparency, and good governance. The Common Space on Research, Education, and Culture has also yielded meaningful results by creating a framework for joint actions to increase cooperation in scientific programs, educational initiatives, and cultural matters.
By contrast, areas involving security and foreign policy have failed to achieve the desired results, as cooperation is inherently more difficult in these domains. The Common Space of Freedom, Security and Justice addressed, among other things, visa requirements — where some progress was made — while other discussions, such as Russian judicial reform, remain ongoing amid EU concerns about systemic inefficiency. The Common Space on External Security represents a particularly sensitive area. Although the EU promotes peaceful approaches to conflicts adjacent to the Russian Federation — such as those in Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Nagorno-Karabakh — Russia has failed to take consistent constructive action on these matters and has, through indirect involvement, at times contributed to the persistence of these conflicts.
Taken together, these circumstances make clear that the most intractable issues in the EU-Russia dialogue relate to foreign policy, defense, and political values. These policy domains are closely interconnected, and from the perspective of both sides they carry significant weight given their respective historical experiences and the directions in which current policies are being pursued.
The different perceptions each side holds of the other have been a persistent obstacle, and have been consistently identified by observers of the Partnership process. It has been argued that Russia perceives itself in its relationship with the European Union as constantly in an inferior position, partly because it views the EU as a key advocate for its WTO membership bid (Baranovsky, 2000). From the Russian perspective, this negotiating imbalance — rooted in the historical tradition of Russian statecraft — has tended to stiffen dialogue channels and reduce Russian enthusiasm for deeper engagement. From the European side, the need for energy security and political stability in member states bordering Russia has driven high expectations and a demanding negotiating posture that Russia struggles to meet. While Russia is reluctant to commit fully to a democratization process the EU expects, the EU pushes for immediate results. The EU's demand for restructuring of Russian industry, without providing commensurate financial assistance, illustrates this tension (Baranovsky, 2000).
"Mistrust, asymmetric incentives, and political perception gaps"
"Limited engagement versus assertive reform-pressure approaches"
The first option — a scaling back of the cooperation agenda — would require both sides to acknowledge the negative aspects of their cooperation and the shortcomings of their efforts to date. Halting the cooperation process at this stage would partly negate the progress already achieved in areas such as education, culture, and border cooperation — areas where significant advances were made that would have been inconceivable during the Cold War. However, these areas do not constitute the core of the bilateral dialogue. It is the sensitive issues of democracy, human rights, and security that create the most serious difficulties.
A possible approach under a limited-cooperation scenario would be to ease tension within the Agreement framework by setting aside issues that directly challenge the core values of either party. From the EU's perspective, concepts such as a free-market economy or competitive transparency have no direct equivalent in the Russian context — a gap that is largely a product of divergent historical experiences. The European Union has a long tradition of adopting and implementing liberal economic principles, whereas the Russian Federation was the heart of a communist, state-planned economy, with corruption and state intervention as enduring features of its business environment. From this standpoint, the number of issues on which the two sides can genuinely agree is limited.
In the scenario of a more assertive EU approach, there is a question regarding the instruments available to the EU to press Russia toward compliance. Unlike former communist countries that were candidates for EU membership, "the EU could never use the big sticks and material carrots that accompany an EU membership perspective. Neither Russia nor the EU ever seriously contemplated this kind of relationship. Nevertheless, in its Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Russia, the EU sets almost the same goals for democracy as it does in its Europe Agreements with the accession states" (Schuette, 2004). While demands are comparable to those placed on accession candidates, the incentive structure is fundamentally different: with no membership prospect on the table, more creative political incentives must be offered to encourage a shift in Russia's posture.
From Russia's perspective, WTO membership and full economic support — without requiring a restructuring of its economic system — would be the most acceptable outcome. This perspective was acknowledged by European leaders, and European Commissioner for External Relations Benita Ferrero-Waldner addressed it directly before the EU-Russia summit of 26 October 2007, arguing that "Russia is the only major economic power still outside the WTO. WTO accession will create a level playing field for both our business communities and greatly help Russian efforts to build a modern, diversified, high-technology economy. The summit will give a new impetus to the accession process, which is at a critical stage" (European Commission, 2007). This created conditions for the EU to take a firmer stance, pressing Russia to advance more decisively on the democratization process, on unresolved conflicts in Russia's periphery, and on the political environment — still widely regarded as insufficiently democratic following recent parliamentary elections.
The outcome, however, depends on the EU's actual capacity to seize this opportunity and on its willingness to accept potential setbacks should Russia view the demands as too far-reaching.
EU-Russia relations are without doubt a cornerstone of European foreign policy. For Russia as well, they represent an anchor in international politics. The 1997 Partnership and Cooperation Agreement marked a defining moment in the evolution of contacts between the two sides. Nonetheless, historical differences, difficulties in mutual understanding, and an inability to compromise on sensitive issues such as democracy, defense, and foreign policy have meant that the road toward a genuinely functional partnership is currently passing through a difficult period.
Whatever scenarios policymakers may consider, the vital element linking all of them must be the continuation of dialogue between the two parties — whether it proceeds at a slower pace and within a limited range of issues, or at a faster and more ambitious one. Given the interdependent nature of contemporary international relations, neither side can afford to lose contact with the other.
Baranovsky, Vladimir. "Russia: A Part of Europe or Apart from Europe?" International Affairs Vol. 76, No. 3, Europe: Where Does it Begin and End? (July 2000), pp. 443–458.
BBC. "EU-Russia relations 'at low ebb'." BBC News. 20 April 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6574615.stm (accessed 13 December 2007).
Emerson, Michael, and Irina Kobrinskaya. "Russia and the West." Working Paper 2004. European Security Forum. Center for European Policy Studies. International Institute for Strategic Studies.
European Commission. "EU-Russia: Preparations for the Summit on 26 October." European Parliament. Strasbourg, 24 October 2007. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/07/653&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en (accessed 13 December 2007).
Lynch, Dov. "EU-Russian security dimension." Institute for Security Studies. 2003.
Schuette, Rolf. "EU-Russia relations: Interests and Values — A European Perspective." Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 2004.
The Bulletin of the European Communities. "Lisbon European Council." 1992. http://aei.pitt.edu/1420/01/Lisbon_june_1992.pdf (accessed 13 December 2007).
The European Commission. "Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation." 1997. (accessed 13 December 2007).
The European Commission. "Road Map for the Common Economic Space: Building Blocks for Sustained Economic Growth." 2005. (accessed 13 December 2007).
The European Union. "EU-Russia relations." External Relations. 2006. (accessed 13 December 2007).
Vahl, Marius. "A Privileged Partnership? EU-Russian Relations in a Comparative Perspective." Danish Institute for International Studies. Working Paper No. 2006/3.
You’re 86% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.