Journal of European Integration

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/geui20

The partnership that failed: EU-Russia relations

Marco Siddi

To cite this article: Marco Siddi (2022) The partnership that failed: EU-Russia
relations and the war in Ukraine, Journal of European Integration, 44:6, 893-898, DOI:
10.1080/07036337.2022.2109651

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2022.2109651

Published online: 07 Aug 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 9514

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

The partnership that failed: EU-Russia relations and the war in

Books reviewed
Natalia Chaban and Ole Elgström The Ukraine Crisis and EU Foreign Policy Roles, Images of
the EU in the Context.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2021.
Mai’a K. Davies Cross and Ireneusz Pawel Karolewski (eds.) European-Russian Power
Relations in Turbulent Times. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2021.
Thane Gustafson The Bridge: Natural Gas in a Redivided Europe. Harvard: Harvard
University Press, 2020.

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Between 2014 and 2021, the EU’s relationship with Russia oscillated Russia; Ukraine; war; power;
between the ever more elusive quest for a mutually acceptable geo­ perceptions; EU foreign
political balance and increasing conflict. The conflict focused primarily policy
on the future of Ukraine . Three new books analyse essential parts of
this conundrum: the changing nature of the EU’s power in the context
of the Ukraine conflict, the long-standing EU-Russia business and
energy relationship, and the self-image and external perceptions of
EU foreign policy towards Ukraine. While written before the 2022 war,
the books remain highly relevant because they dissect an ongoing
process of changing EU actorness in its Eastern neighbourhood. In
order to analyse the path to the 2022 war and its aftermath, future
research must expand on this scholarship by enlarging the spectrum of
theoretical approaches while navigating the new constraints that the
war and the ensuing tense policy debates have put on empirical work.

The war unleashed by Russia against Ukraine in February 2022 has been broadly
described as a turning point for European politics, security and economy. In the weeks
preceding the Russian attack, the Kremlin addressed his demands for a new European
security architecture primarily to the United States, and treated the European Union (EU)
as Washington’s minor partner. Moreover, it snubbed Ukraine as a failed polity without
a history of statehood, which the West merely used in an anti-Russian function (Putin
2022). Nonetheless, the most profound consequences of the war concern Ukraine’s
relations with Russia and the EU, its place in European politics and the relationship
between Russia and the EU.

CONTACT Marco Siddi marco.siddi@unica.it Department of Political and Social Science, University of Cagliari,
Cagliari, Italy
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
894 M. SIDDI

EU-Russia relations have been the subject of a large number of scholarly publications in
recent years. Since the early 2010s, this scholarship has become increasingly pessimistic
about the state and trajectory of the relationship. Unsurprisingly, after 2014, a year
marked by Russia’s annexation of Crimea and armed conflict in the Donbas, negative
assessments and predictions multiplied. Emblematically, Forsberg and Haukkala (2016)
described EU-Russia relations as ‘the partnership that failed’. While acknowledging the
non-linear development of the relationship, as well as various attempts to revive coopera­
tion until the early 2010s, they argued that the accumulation of differences and conflicts
in the economic, political and – most notably – security arenas made a deep crisis the
most likely outcome. Hence, they viewed the conflict that began in Ukraine in late 2013 as
the culmination of a long-term crisis in relations.
This view epitomises the dominant assessment of EU-Russia relations among scholars
in the 2010s. A significant strand of this literature applied constructivist models focusing
on identities and perceptions to understand the nature of differences between Russia and
the EU, analysing a vast range of policy areas (Casier and DeBardeleben 2018) and
geographical contexts (Samokhvalov 2017; Siddi 2020). Some scholars delved into the
specific Russia policies of EU member states in order to reveal different national elite
perceptions and hence explain the incoherence of Brussels’ approach to Moscow (David,
Gower, and Haukkala 2013; Fix 2021; Siddi 2017; Thaler 2020). Particular attention was
devoted to EU-Russia energy relations, which has been the long-term economic corner­
stone of the relationship, as well as arguably its most strategic component (see for
example Belyi 2015; Högselius 2013; Oxenstierna and Tynkkynen 2014). Trans-
disciplinary, multi-authored works dissected the causes and dynamics of the Ukraine
conflict, the EU’s policy towards Russia after the annexation of Crimea, and evaluated
the actorness of the EU in this context (Averre and Wolczuk 2018; Bossuyt and Van
Elsuwege 2021; Romanova and David 2021)
Meanwhile, a different body of scholarship investigated the changes in Russian
foreign policy in order to understand its anti-Western and eventually anti-EU shift
(Cadier and Light 2015; Sakwa 2017). Some of these works had the merit of unearth­
ing the shifting historical and identity narratives in the post-Soviet space that
contribute to explaining the causes of the Russia-Ukraine war (Fedor et al. 2017).
A comparatively smaller, but significant set of works focused on the EU’s approach to
its shared neighbourhood with Russia, analysing how the Union induced domestic
change and reforms (Nizhnikau 2019) or how it (re)framed its policy in the light of
the ‘return of geopolitics’ to the region (Youngs 2017).
While the scholarship is extremely vast and rich in terms of topics and approaches
adopted to analyse them, a few key questions stand out that should be revisited following
Russia’s attack on Ukraine in February 2022. Arguably, the most salient question concerns
how the conflict in Ukraine has reshaped European politics and security, cementing the
‘return of geopolitics’, and how the EU has adjusted to the new context. What kind of power
is the EU, and has its actorness been enabled or constrained by the confrontation with
Russia? This question should be addressed by including the perspective of external actors,
such as Ukraine, rather than from an EU-centric perspective. Moreover, the EU-Russia relation­
ship should be reassessed against the broader background of growing geopolitical competi­
tion: is its current, deep crisis only the result of geopolitical confrontation in Eastern Europe,
 JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION 895

or is it also part of a broader contestation between liberal and illiberal ideas, a regional
conflict between a US-led and a new China-led block? Has selective cooperation in areas such
as energy been abandoned for good, leaving room for uncompromising confrontation?
While published shortly before the 2022 war, the contributions in Mai’a K. Davies Cross
and Ireneusz Pawel Karolewski’s edited book European-Russian Power Relations in
Turbulent Times provide tentative answers to some of these questions. The authors
argue that structural reasons, notably geopolitical competition in Eastern Europe, and
identity-related factors such as Russian ontological (in)security caused the deterioration of
EU-Russia relations. The book’s most original contribution to EU studies lies in the analysis
of how the EU has adapted to Russia’s growing assertiveness in the 2010s. Cross and
Karolewski argue that the EU has been mostly a reactive power, but it is turning more
proactive as a result of Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. EU actorness and power has
been enabled, rather than constrained by Russia’s actions. The cooling of relations with
the United States and Washington’s erratic foreign policy during the Trump presidency –
a development that is highlighted repeatedly by the authors – also spurred the EU into
action.
The book has the merit of relating the EU-Russia relationship to the broader global
context, particularly by arguing that it is one of the central dynamics behind the emer­
gence of a less stable international system. On the other hand, the book reiterates some of
the questionable assumptions of earlier scholarship. The authors state that they ‘recog­
nise at the outset that it is primarily Russia’s behaviour that has and is changing in this
relational dynamic’(p. 5). While Russia’s foreign policy has certainly changed since the
early 2000s, so has the EU’s, not least due to its Eastern enlargement, the inclusion of
member states with different foreign policy priorities and the launch of new policy
frameworks, such as the Eastern Partnership. The initial assumption that the EU has
changed little inevitably leads to the conclusion that it is mostly a reactive power and,
ultimately, underestimates its agency. Similarly, the claim that change happened primarily
in Russia’s foreign policy downplays developments in, and the agency of Ukraine –
a country that has witnessed two revolutions and substantial domestic and foreign policy
change in the last two decades.
While Cross and Karolewski’s book addresses numerous important empirical develop­
ments, the range of theoretical frameworks adopted by contributors is limited to the main
grand theories of International Relations, and the methodology of several chapters is
rather loose. Recognising the need to anchor the analysis in rigorous methodology and
apply theory systematically, Natalia Chaban and Ole Elgström’s The Ukraine Crisis and EU
Foreign Policy Roles adopts role theory and perception studies to investigate EU foreign
policy and EU-Ukraine relations. The book has a coherent and solid theoretical base, which
it tries to link to policy analysis (for instance, assessing the effectiveness of EU foreign
policy) and policy development (offering pathways to differentiated and nuanced com­
munications of the EU with Ukraine). The book takes stock of a broad range of literature
on EU perception studies and role theory over the last fifty years and highlights how
external perceptions of the EU changed, especially after the 2008 economic crisis.
The main innovation in Chaban’s and Elgström’s analysis is the focus on Ukrainian
perspectives. The book begins with an overview of developments in Ukraine. The analysis
revolves around a comparison between self-conceptions and external (Ukrainian) elite
perceptions of EU foreign policy. In this sense, the analysis is consistent with the stated
896 M. SIDDI

goal of avoiding the trap of Eurocentrism and instead assess how the EU is received and
reacted to as a foreign policy agent by external actors. Four EU policy roles are identified
in the Ukraine crisis: the EU as a global and regional power leader; the EU as a bilateral
partner; the EU as a mediator; and the EU as a public diplomacy actor. While self-
perceptions concerning performance and effectiveness are generally positive among EU
policy makers, the analysis of Ukrainian elite perceptions reveals a different picture. The
EU is seen as a considerable power in the economic and normative sphere, but as an
inefficient mediator, as weak in public diplomacy and as non-existent in the security
realm. Chaban and Elgström highlight that considering these perceptions is important in
order to evaluate EU foreign policy, but they also stress that such views sometimes stem
from unrealistic expectations by Ukrainian elites. In the book, the focus on EU and
Ukrainian perceptions and EU-Ukraine relations comes at the cost of neglecting Russian
foreign policy roles and perspectives, which also play an important role in shaping the EU-
Ukraine relationship. This omission can however be justified by the complexity of includ­
ing a third perspective in the book, as well as by the fact that Russian agency and EU-
Russia relations are analysed extensively in other works.
Indeed, scholarly literature has devoted much greater attention to the EU-Russia
relationship, including specific policy aspects. In this respect, Thane Gustafson’s The
Bridge is one of the latest examples. The book investigates energy trade, the single
most important economic aspect of EU-Russia relations. The focus is on gas, the most
politically sensitive energy source in the relationship due to its intrinsic features. As gas
can only be shipped via pipeline or – at very low temperatures – in liquid state by tankers,
gas markets are more regional and fragmented (as opposed to global oil markets). Due to
its geographic proximity, existing infrastructure and relatively low production costs,
Russia has become the largest and most competitive gas supplier to the European market.
While theory is not the focus of Gustafson’s book, its premise is grounded in liberalism:
energy trade contributes to peaceful relations by enhancing shared interests.
Gustafson’s excellent historical narrative meticulously reconstructs how the Soviet- and
Russian-European gas relationship originated, how it expanded from the 1990s to the
2010s and how the main actors and guiding ideas evolved over time. He shows that gas
trade started thanks to the initiative of European state-owned businesses, national
diplomacies and Soviet officials. Due to the restructuring of the European energy market
in the 1990s and 2000s, leading to privatisations and the digitisation of gas trade, the
personal and long-term contractual ties between Eastern and Western actors have largely
been replaced by spot markets and short-term business relations. This had an impact on
the nature of the energy relationship. However, as Gustafson emphasises, the main threat
to the EU-Russia ‘gas bridge’ came from growing geopolitical tensions and the rise of
environmentalism in the 2010s. Geopolitical tensions led both sides to be wary of
excessive interdependence and seek alternative partners. Especially in the second half
of the 2010s, environmentalism increasingly undermined the idea of gas as a less pollut­
ing fossil fuel that could act as a back-up to renewables, or as transition source on the path
to a carbon-neutral society. Following Russia’s attack on Ukraine in 2022, geopolitical
considerations and the environmental agenda have seemingly coalesced in the EU,
resulting in the RePowerEU plan to overcome dependence on Russian fossil fuels by
inter alia accelerating the energy transition.
 JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION 897

Taken together, the three books provide excellent empirical analyses of different
aspects of the EU’s relationship with Russia and Ukraine on the eve of the 2022 war.
They offer answers to highly relevant questions concerning the EU’s foreign policy
actorness and power, and the way these are perceived by external actors. Due to the
war and the rapidly changing context, future scholarship should treat these answers as
work-in-progress and continue to focus on the questions that they try to address. For
instance, the EU’s changing actorness and articulations of power in Eastern Europe is
a long-term process that will continue to unfold in the coming years, possibly in a non-
linear way. Most notably, the EU’s adoption of a more strategic or geopolitical stance in
foreign affairs could generate tensions with the liberal paradigms that have guided EU
external action until recently. Analysing other actors’ perceptions of the EU will continue
to be essential in order to predict and assess the effectiveness of EU foreign policy.
At the same time, future studies should expand the empirical focus to topics that have
been neglected thus far, adopt different and critical theoretical approaches and improve
methodological rigour. From an empirical perspective, research should continue to
combine a focus on EU-Russia-Ukraine interaction in Eastern Europe with an explanation
of how it relates to broader global trends – without forgetting other locations where this
interaction occurs, for instance North Africa and the Middle East. Empirical studies will
have to face the constraints that the war and sanctions have imposed on cross-border
research cooperation and even on the freedom of opinion and expression.
From a theoretical standpoint, scholarship on EU-Russia relations in particular should
go beyond the realist/liberal (or geopolitical/normative) dichotomy, deepen constructivist
analyses and, most importantly, venture into critical theories such as postcolonial and
securitisation theory. As nearly every aspect of the EU-Russia relationship becomes
securitised, a systematic analysis of the discursive processes through which this is hap­
pening appears very apt. On the other hand, postcolonial approaches could provide
a framework to foreground the perspectives of Ukrainian and other Eastern European
actors located between the EU and Russia. New constructivist studies could analyse the
ongoing process of (re)construction of European, Russian and Ukrainian identities, not
least by highlighting the processes of antagonistic othering that are well-entrenched
historically and are being radicalised once again by the current conflict. Ultimately, this
research agenda could be functional to understanding the nature of present disagree­
ments and trace a path to address them constructively.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References
Averre, Derek, and Kataryna Wolczuk, eds. 2018. The Ukraine Conflict: Security, Identity and Politics in
the Wider Europe. Abingdon: Routledge.
Belyi, Andrei. 2015. Transnational Gas Markets and Euro-Russian Energy Relations. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Bossuyt, Fabienne, Peter and Van Elsuwege. eds. 2021. Principled Pragmatism in Practice. The EU’s
Policy Towards Russia after Crimea. Leiden: Brill.
898 M. SIDDI

Cadier, David, and Margot Light, eds. 2015. Russia’s Foreign Policy: Ideas, Domestic Politics and
External Relations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Casier, Tom, and Joan DeBardeleben, eds. 2018. EU-Russia Relations in Crisis: Understanding Diverging
Perceptions. Abingdon: Routledge.
David, Maxine, Jackie Gower, and Hiski Haukkala, eds. 2013. National Perspectives on Russia:
European Foreign Policy in the Making? Abingdon: Routledge.
Fedor, Julie, Markku Kangaspuro, Jussi Lassila, and Tatiana Zhurzhenko, eds. 2017. War and Memory
in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fix, Liana. 2021. Germany’s Role in European Russia Policy: A New German Power? London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Forsberg, Tuomas, and Hiski Haukkala. 2016. The European Union and Russia. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Högselius, Per. 2013. Red Gas: Russia and the Origins of European Energy Dependence. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Nizhnikau, Ryhor. 2019. EU Induced Institutional Change in Post-Soviet Space: Promoting Reforms in
Moldova and Ukraine. Abingdon: Routledge.
Oxenstierna, Susanne, and Veli-Pekka Tynkkynen, eds. 2014. Russian Energy and Security up to 2030.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Putin, Vladimir. 2022. “Address by the President of the Russian Federation.” 21 February. http://en.
kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828
Romanova, Tatiana, and Maxine David, eds. 2021. The Routledge Handbook of EU-Russia Relations:
Structures, Actors, Issues. Abingdon: Routledge.
Sakwa, Richard. 2017. Russia against the Rest. The Post-Cold War Crisis of World Order. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Samokhvalov, Vsevolod. 2017. Russian-European Relations in the Balkans and Black Sea Region.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Siddi, Marco. 2017. National Identities and Foreign Policy in the European Union. Colchester: ECPR
Press.
Siddi, Marco. 2020. European Identities and Foreign Policy Discourses on Russia: From the Ukraine to
the Syrian Crisis. Abingdon: Routledge.
Thaler, Philipp. 2020. Shaping EU Foreign Policy Towards Russia. Improving Coherence in External
Relations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Youngs, Richard. 2017. Europe’s Eastern Crisis: The Geopolitics of Asymmetry. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.