Asked if Brexit will make the EU more pro-Russian, international experts with different backgrounds approached by <a href=”http://euractiv.com” rel=”nofollow”>euractiv.com</a> were not unanimous in their assessment. However, all said that without the UK, the EU will be weaker internationally.
Michael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies and former EU Ambassador to Moscow, said that Brexit would tilt the EU toward a softer stance vis-à-vis Russia.
Emerson cited the heavily-read article in the Guardian by David Miliband, the former UK foreign secretary, who said that those who will celebrate the morning after a British vote to leave will not be Germany, France or the rest of the EU. It would be Marine Le Pen, Vladimir Putin, and perhaps Donald Trump.
Emerson pointed out the the Litvinenko affair, which has helped position the UK amongst hardliners in the EU, vis-à-vis Russia.
Alexander Litvinenko, a former officer in the Russian secret services, who received political asylum in the UK, fell victim to radioactive polonium poisoning in 2006. Subsequent investigations by British authorities into the circumstances of Litvinenko’s death led to serious diplomatic difficulties between the British and Russian governments.
Contrasting ends of the spectrum
Among the anti-Moscow hardliners in the EU is Poland, a country marked by the 1940 Katyn massacre, in which some 22,000 Polish officers and intelligentsia were executed on the orders of Stalin.
In contrast, member states such as Italy, Greece, Bulgaria have always been considered pro-Russian. In recent years, a rapprochement with Russia has been visible under Hungary’s PM Viktor Orbán, as well as in Slovakia under Robert Fico. But even France is seen as accommodating to Russia, and found it hard to cancel a sale of Mistral-class helicopter carriers because of Moscow’s war in Ukraine.

Regarding Germany, the country appears to be inhibited by its recent history to strongly oppose Russia. It is also seen as being too friendly to Gazprom, and support for the Nord Stream 2 project has become a divisive factor in the EU.

“The UK tends towards the harder end of the spectrum of EU member states, not as deeply so as Poland or the Baltic states, but with much less weight given to commercial interests than in Germany or Italy for example. The Litvinenko polonium affair also introduces a fair amount of political poison into the relationship. So overall, the weighting of views in the Council of Foreign Ministers would be tilted a bit towards the softer end of the spectrum,”  Emerson said.
Morgan Palmer, a visiting scholar at the SWP Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, argued that Brexit served Russia’s overarching goal of weakening the EU. Officially, Russia denies pursuing such goal.

“It is well known that Russia would prefer to deal with the individual nation states of the EU separately rather than as a collective unit. Russia’s preference would be division and less integration of the European member states,” Palmer said.
The analyst further argued that Brexit could start a trend of member states questioning their own membership.
“There have been articles and discussions of the possibility of Poland and France succumbing to the same cries for a referendum that Britain is now in the process of and perhaps more would follow this domino effect depending on the outcome of a Brexit and the success that it has in re-establishing itself outside the EU. The looming threat of another Scottish referendum on independence if Britain does decide to leave could also provide a further catalyst for the splitting of individual member states resulting in further divisions which may well be beneficial from a Russian perspective,” Palmer said.
In the case of Brexit, Germany would have even more influence, he further argued.
“The loss of a significant contributor to the EU budget, compounded with the fact that France is in real danger of an economic recession, it is likely that Germany would gain even more influence over the EU. There has been much debate about whether Germany can try and maintain its position as a country between East and West. Yet, it was Germany that called for intervention in the Ukraine conflict, Palmer reminded.
But he said that a lot depended on Germany assuming real leadership,
“Thus, Germany could in fact create strong resistance to Russia’s relations with Europe. This, however, depends on whether Germany would choose to lead Europe to further integration upon the exit of Britain, or permit it to continue coping with crises but not solving the underlying problems,” Palmer concluded.
Roman Rukomeda, an independent analyst in Ukraine, said that Brexit would not necessarily make the EU more pro-Russian, but in any case, the Union would become weaker. He referred to the recent Dutch referendum against the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement as an early warning of further disintegration. He also hinted that Russia was pushing in this direction with money and covert activity.

“Brexit can become the real starter of the EU’s disintegration process. After the referendum in Netherlands on the Ukraine-EU association, Brexit is pushing the trend on European Union’s internal conflict. No doubt it is done with the help of Russian influence, especially political, financial and informational resources. The issue of the UK referendum, irrespective of its result, is already making EU weaker as a political player. It has negative impact on EU’s ability to deal with Russia and it is giving the Kremlin the assurance that its divide-and-rule tactics are quite effective,” Rukomeda said.
The Ukrainian analyst said that this does not mean that the EU will necessarily be more pro-Russian. “It will just be weaker to react on continuous Russian pressure and attempts to create as many conflict lines inside EU as possible. The European Union will not become more pro-Russian. It will just become less pro-European,” Rukomeda said.
He further referred to the issue of EU sanctions against Russia, seen by Ukraine as vital for leveraging the conflict in Eastern Ukraine.
“It also will give good ground for many Russian friends in France, Austria, Hungary, Germany, Italy and some other countries to feel that it is time to push on Brussels for taking away the sanctions against Russia. After, it may happen that the EU will finally lose its mandate to proclaimEuropean values and human rights as its highest priority. Instead, it will become clear that only profit is the main value of many European capitals,” Rukomeda said. He added that for Ukraine, it was better to have no illusions and be able to defend itself by all possible means.
Danila Bochkarev, Senior Fellow at the East-West Institute, sees Brexit as unlikely. But in the event of Brexit, he sees the ties between the UK, where a large part of the Russian elite has invested its wealth in real estate, becoming even stronger.
“I think Brexit is a bit too theoretical to discuss it at this stage, especially in the foreign policy area. My take is that nothing will really change in an unlikely event of Brexit. I see only ties between Moscow and London getting stronger – indeed despite often harsh rhetoric and serious political disagreements the financial link between the UK and Russia is strong and will get stronger in case of Brexit”, Bochkarev said.
He did not anticipate major changes in EU-Russia relations, and stressed that UK-Russia and the Russia-US relations had more relevance in geopolitical terms.
“The UK, as a member of the UN Security Council and a member of nuclear club is and will be an important interlocutor for Russia. As for Ukraine, I think the resolution of Ukraine crisis is more affected by the changing dynamics in the US – Russia relations, than by Moscow’s relations with Brussels,” Bochkarev said.
Piotr Kazczynski, a Polish-born analyst with vast Brussels experience, was even more pessimistic, pondering the ultimate disintegration of the EU itself.
“Brexit impact would have a terrible impact on EU’s capacity worldwide,” he told EURACTIV.
“First, inside of the EU, it could trigger a domino effect (eg in the Netherlands or Finland… or even in France in 2017).
“Second, it would substantially diminish the EU’s clout, be it political (such as transatlantic relations would now be largely based on Germany-US ties) or military (the UK’s military capacity can be only matched by France in the EU).
“In effect, it would further push EU into internal turmoil without much capacity to deal with any major international matters. Effectively this could mean that the political Europe, if it meant a power to impact world affairs, is gone, and Europe is at best relegated to be a secondary regional actor.
“At worst, it could enter a path of disintegration.”

Angela Merkel’s government is to reconsider a controversial promotion for Germany’s outspoken domestic intelligence chief,  further threatening the unity of the chancellor’s fragile coalition.
Hans-Georg Maassen was removed as head of the BfV intelligence service this week amid concerns he was interfering in politics after he publicly contradicted the chancellor over far-Right protests in the city of Chemnitz.
Mr Maassen’s fate has already divided Mrs Merkel’s coalition partners. The centre-Left Social Democrats (SPD) demanded his dismissal while Horst Seehofer, the interior minister and leader of the Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU), backed the intelligence chief.
Under a compromise deal designed to keep all sides happy, Mr Maassen was due to move to a more senior position at the interior ministry. But in a sign of growing tensions within the coalition, the SPD demanded a rethink on Friday amid growing public opposition.
“The consistently negative reactions from the population show that we were wrong, and that we lost trust instead of restoring it, which should give us cause to pause and reconsider,” Andrea Nahles, the SPD leader, wrote in a letter to her coalition partners.

KIEV (AFP) -Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko is suing British broadcaster BBC for libel over an article that said Kiev paid $400,000 to secure a meeting with US leader Donald Trump last year.
Poroshenko issued the libel claim, seen by AFP, over an article published in May this year that said Kiev paid Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen a “secret payment of at least $400,000” to “fix talks” between Poroshenko and Trump in the White House in June 2017.
The claim, filed through a British law firm, says the news story damaged Poroshenko’s “political and business” reputation and caused him “substantial distress and embarrassment”.
It added that the allegation of “serious corruption” was especially damaging because of Poroshenko’s “promotion of a number of anti-corruption measures in Ukraine”.
A spokesman for the BBC told AFP that it “cannot comment on this ongoing case”.
The article, which was also used in a televised report, was based on “sources in Kiev close to those involved”.
It said a “high ranking Ukrainian intelligence officer” told the BBC the payment was made as Kiev’s embassy in Washington “could get Poroshenko little more than a brief photo-op with Trump”.
Poroshenko met with Trump in the White House in June 2017.
There was speculation ahead of the meeting that Trump would refuse to meet the Ukrainian leader.
Washington did not announce the sit-down in advance — as is customary — and when it was described, the White House called it a “drop-in” with the US president.
For three years, ties between Washington and Kiev have been dominated by efforts to contain a destabilising Russia-backed rebellion in eastern Ukraine.
The crisis has left 10,000 dead and heightened tensions between the West and the Kremlin.
Kiev has been concerned by Trump often appearing reluctant to put pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to solve the crisis.
Ukrainians are scheduled to go to polls to elect a president next March.
Poroshenko, who took office in 2014, is widely expected to run but has not yet made an official announcement.
Corruption was among the top reasons that prompted Ukrainians to take to the streets and oust a Kremlin-backed regime in early 2014.
But Ukrainian and Western observers have repeatedly questioned pro-Western Poroshenko’s resolve to reform the country’s kleptocratic system.
© 2018 AFP

WASHINGTON (AP) — As Trump campaign associates folded one by one over the last year under the pressure of federal investigators, there was always Paul Manafort.
Until suddenly there wasn’t.
Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, who for months stood resolute in his innocence and determined to fight charge upon charge even as fellow onetime loyalists caved, reached an extraordinary plea agreement with special counsel Robert Mueller’s office on Friday that requires him to assist the Russia investigation and converts him into a potentially vital government cooperator.
The deal, struck in Washington just days before Manafort was to have faced a second trial, is tied to Ukrainian political consulting work and unrelated to the Trump campaign.
The question remains what information Manafort, 69, is able to provide about the president, as well as whether the Trump election effort coordinated with Russia.
Manafort’s leadership of the campaign at a time when prosecutors say Russian intelligence was working to sway the election, and his involvement in episodes under scrutiny, may make him an especially insightful witness.
He was among the participants in a June 2016 Trump Tower meeting in New York with Russians and Trump’s oldest son and son-in-law that was arranged for the campaign to receive derogatory information about Democratic president nominee Hillary Clinton.
He was also a close business associate of a man who U.S. intelligence believes has ties to Russian intelligence. While he was working on the campaign, emails show Manafort discussed providing private briefings for a wealthy Russian businessman close to Vladimir Putin.
“The expectations around Manafort’s cooperation are likely at a level beyond anyone else to date who has agreed to cooperate,” said Jacob Frenkel, a Washington lawyer not involved in the case. “Whether those expectations will be met is the great unknown.”
Manafort had long resisted the idea of cooperating even as prosecutors stacked additional charges against him in Washington and Virginia. Trump had saluted that stance, publicly praising him and suggesting Manafort had been treated worse than gangster Al Capone. Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, had suggested a pardon might be a possibility after the investigation was concluded.
Then came Friday’s development.
Manafort agreed to provide any information asked of him, testify whenever asked and even work undercover if necessary. The cooperation ensures the investigation will extend far beyond the November elections despite entreaties from the president’s lawyers that Mueller bring it to a close.
The agreement makes Manafort the latest associate of Trump, a president known to place a premium on loyalty among subordinates, to admit guilt and work with investigators in hopes of leniency.
Mueller had already secured cooperation from a former Trump national security adviser who lied to the FBI about discussing sanctions with a Russian ambassador; a Trump campaign aide who broached the idea of a meeting with Putin; and another aide who was indicted alongside Manafort but ultimately turned on him. Trump’s former personal lawyer has separately pleaded guilty in New York.
Manafort was convicted last month of eight financial crimes in a separate trial in Virginia and faces an estimated seven to 10 years in prison in that case. The two conspiracy counts he admitted to on Friday carry up to five years, though Manafort’s sentence will ultimately depend on his cooperation.
“He wanted to make sure that his family was able to remain safe and live a good life. He’s accepted responsibility. This is for conduct that dates back many years and everybody should remember that,” Manafort attorney Kevin Downing said outside court.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders insisted the Manafort case was unrelated to Trump. Giuliani said he spoke to Trump on Friday about Manafort’s plea.
“The president was OK with it,” he said. “In a way, it’s another indication there is no evidence of collusion. All of these charges predate the time Paul spent with the president. And there’s nothing in what he pleaded about collusion.”
It’s unclear how the deal might affect any Manafort pursuit of a pardon from Trump, though Giuliani told Politico before the deal that a plea without a cooperation agreement wouldn’t foreclose the possibility of a pardon.

Under the terms of the deal, Manafort was allowed to plead guilty to just two counts, though the crimes he admitted largely overlap with the conduct alleged in an indictment last year. He abandoned his right to appeal his sentences in Washington and Virginia and agreed to forfeit homes in New York, including a condo in Trump Tower.
But the guilty plea spares Manafort the cost of a weekslong trial that could have added years to the prison time he’s already facing following the Virginia guilty verdicts. A jury there found him guilty of filing false tax returns, failing to report foreign bank accounts and bank fraud. Jurors deadlocked on 10 other counts.
Prosecutors on Friday presented new information about allegations they were prepared to reveal at trial, which was to have focused on Manafort’s political consulting and lobbying work on behalf of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and the pro-Russian Party of Regions.
That case alleged that Manafort directed a large-scale U.S. lobbying operation for Ukrainian interests but never registered with the Justice Department as a foreign agent despite being required to do so under the law, and that he concealed millions of dollars in income for the consulting work from the IRS.
He also failed to disclose his involvement in lobbying efforts made through a group of former European politicians, known as the Hapsburg Group, who pushed policies beneficial to Ukraine, prosecutors said Friday.
In 2013, one of the politicians and his country’s prime minister met with then-President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden in the Oval Office. Manafort was later sent an email that the politicians had “delivered the message of not letting ‘Russians Steal Ukraine from the West.'”
Another allegation revealed Friday concerns Manafort’s efforts to peddle stories to discredit Yanukovych’s opponent, Yulia Tymoshenko, and undermine U.S. government support for her.
Prosecutors said he spread stories and secretly coordinated with an Israeli government official to publicize the idea that a U.S. Cabinet official was an anti-Semite for supporting Tymoshenko, “who in turn had formed a political alliance with a Ukraine party that espoused anti-Semitic views,” court documents said.
“I have someone pushing it on the NY Post. Bada bing bada boom,” Manafort wrote to a colleague, prosecutors say.