EAt the end of July, the Ukrainian President announced that he wanted to make his country the “guarantor of European energy security”. Most of the electricity produced is not used anyway because production has come to a standstill because of the war. In fact, Ukraine has also been supplying cheap electricity to its western neighbors since the beginning of the summer when it was connected to the European grid. But that’s over now, as Volodymyr Zelenskyy informed the European Council on Thursday evening: Because of the recent Russian attacks, which destroyed more than a third of the energy infrastructure, “unfortunately we are no longer able to export electricity to you help to maintain a stable network”.
That was just a sideline to the larger energy debate that leaders held until 2 a.m. But it was the bridge to Friday’s discussion, which focused on the situation in Ukraine, Russia’s recent escalation in the war and Europe’s reactions to it. Zelenskyi also warned that Russia was preparing to blow up the Nova Kakhovka dam, which would cause a huge catastrophic flood in the Kherson region.
Russian terrorism
It was “pure terrorism,” said Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas the next morning, and immediately called for a ninth package of sanctions against Russia. The three Baltic states and Poland had circulated proposals for this before the meeting. It contains many elements that were left out of the last package – such as an embargo on Russian autogas (LPG) and a ban on cooperation in civil nuclear energy. Several states reject this because they cannot currently replace Russian products. In nuclear energy, this applies not only to the Eastern countries, which still operate Soviet reactors, but also to France, which is dependent on the state-owned company Rosatom. He recently delivered enriched uranium to Dunkirk.
The four states are again proposing an import ban on Russian rough diamonds. That only affects Belgium, or more precisely: the diamond dealers in Antwerp, who last year bought diamonds worth 1.8 billion euros from Russia. Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo told the FAZ two weeks ago in Prague that his country would not stand in the way of such sanctions. However, the dealers have already agreed a plan with the EU Commission to reduce imports to zero. They have therefore fallen “significantly” in the past few months.
Is there a special tribunal?
“We don’t have that many tools anymore,” admitted Kaja Kallas in Brussels. “Therefore, we must focus on providing a legal response and prosecuting Russian crimes.” She, like Latvian Prime Minister Krišjānis Kariņš, called for the establishment of a special international tribunal. This has been discussed for a long time. In the run-up to the European Council, pressure grew to include this in the conclusions. But the Netherlands, for example, who are particularly experienced in such matters, warned against hasty decisions.
The federal government is also skeptical. Although the International Court of Justice opened an investigation in March, it is limited to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. On the one hand, Ukraine has not yet ratified the fourth offense of aggression, i.e. a war of aggression, which was added in 2018. On the other hand, the court should not judge at all because the state concerned – Russia – is not a party to the contract. A special tribunal could bypass this hurdle. At the level of the United Nations, Russia could of course prevent this with a veto in the Security Council. Therefore, another solution would have to be found, such as an international treaty between Ukraine and several states.
In the conclusions, leaders only reiterated their “firm commitment to hold Russia and all perpetrators and accomplices accountable” and “strong support for the investigations of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.” The Foreign Representative Josep Borrell should also examine options “so that a fair and effective process can be guaranteed against perpetrators”, also with regard to the crime of aggression.
More China, less Ukraine
The heads of government spoke about Ukraine for just over an hour on Friday. On the other hand, they spent three hours on a strategic debate on how to deal with China. Already on the way to the Council, several confirmed that one should not become more and more dependent on the “authoritarian regime” in Beijing and that national special paths weaken the EU. “We should deal with China as a group of 27, not each one separately,” warned Kariņš.
There was no open criticism of Germany, nor, according to reports, during the debate without mobile phones. However, many states and EU institutions are critical of the Chancellor’s trip to China, which is planned for early November. Reports that the Chancellery wanted to force a Chinese investor to invest in the port of Hamburg against the advice of the relevant ministries were followed closely in Brussels.
Scholz commented on this for the first time after the meeting. The decision has not yet been made, he asserted, but then argued throughout as if he were defending it. It was “just a small stake in one of many terminals,” he said. He presented his trip to China as a normal inaugural visit. Of course, he would take a business delegation with him. That doesn’t need any justification: “It was always like that before.”
