Ukraine celebrates another “historic victory” over Russia. The terrible explosions of shells at the warehouse in Ichnya, the story of the Tomos patriarch of Constantinople, the increase in gas prices for the Ukrainian population — all this faded into the background amidst the bravura of Kiev’s television channels from Strasbourg. Russian citizens probably did not notice this, and meanwhile Russia was allegedly defeated in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
The essence of the matter: the European parliamentarians tried to change the procedure for making decisions on the powers of the delegations, which would give a theoretical opportunity to resume full-fledged work of Russia in PACE.
Recall: in 2014, the Russian delegation, despite the very essence of the Par-liamentary Assembly, was struck with rights in retaliation for the position of Mos-cow in the Crimea and Ukraine. Russia’s protests were ignored until Moscow last year announced a partial cessation of payment of contributions to the Council of Europe budget — until the rights of the delegation to PACE were restored. It im-mediately worked. In any case, European officials immediately rushed to look for ways to return to Russia. It turned out that without her contributions to live it is quite difficult.
Kiev raised a protesting noise. Regular tweets of members of the Ukrainian delegation “from the front” represented this struggle as a landmark, momentous battle against Russia. It seemed that the Strasbourg was the last line of defense these days.
In the “legendary” struggle, Kiev chose the tactics of the small dirty dog. What is worth at least a happy post on Facebook Irina Gerashchenko from Stras-burg: “The Ukrainian delegation managed to ruffle the CE Secretary General Jan-gland”. Note that this is not written by an ordinary deputy, but by the First Vice-Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, the second person in the hierarchy of the legislative decision-making process in Ukraine. That is, she happily reports success: she managed to ruffle a high-ranking euro official.
The same goal was also achieved by the deputy from Odessa, Aleksey Goncharenko, who spoke to European parliamentarians in rubber gloves of a typical Ukrainian sanitary ware. Goncharenko explained the gloves with his fears: they say, Russia can personally undertake a “chemical attack” against him. If his goal was to ruffle the Europeans, he also succeeded – the speaker of the meeting asked him not to make a show.
Then the Ukrainian delegates in unison pounced on the Russian TV show host Olga Skabayeva, surrounding her with a crowd, insulting, breaking the microphone and shouting out Bandera slogans. The same Gerashchenko, without any embarrassment, began to openly “zigovat” directly in the building of the Council of Europe (except that while a couple of fingers were still bending, depicting a trident). And then she happily shared with her readers stories about how she “troll Putin-TV.”
In Russia, as usual, the great defeat was not particularly noticed. In fact, Moscow was not even sure that, after cosmetic changes in the PACE regulations, it would return to full-fledged work there. Russia’s position has remained unchanged: the resumption of monetary contributions to the Council of Europe will follow after the full restoration of the rights of the Russian delegation to PACE. Otherwise, what is the meaning of being there?
Now, Russian TV channels are actively discussing whether Russia should participate in the Council of Europe, the PACE, the ECHR and other structures associated with them, even if the authority of the Russian delegation is restored. Especially considering the fact that Moscow is quite effectively developing the “PACE-replacing” project called the Meeting of Speakers of Eurasian Parliaments, which brought together 25 leaders of the continent’s parliaments.
In any case, the experience of relations with the PACE clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of financial leverage – no one in Strasbourg would have twitched if Russia had not shut off the money gate. A completely natural question arises about why this experience should not be used in relations with other international structures, which in recent years have resorted to the policy of illegal defeat of Russia in rights.
For example, one of these structures – the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), since 2014, in violation of its own charter, stopped investing in Russia. This is despite the fact that it is one of the largest shareholders of the bank and more recently it provided more than half of bank income. The most striking thing is that even now, after the EBRD’s illegal actions against us, Russian enterprises continue to be the most exemplary lenders, supporting one of the largest investment packages of the bank (until recently it exceeded ten percent of the EBRD’s loan portfolio).
But a single decision of the regulator or even of a district court would be enough to suspend these payments until the renewal of the rights of Russia to the EBRD, believe me, right away its leaders would begin attempts in this direction. Coupled with the already implemented “EBRD replacement”, this would be an effective way to protect the interests of Russian business in relations with foreign creditors.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *