The EU has not sat idly by as British democracy reels under the weight of its own loathsome misbehaviour.

On 7 May the EU launched its new Eastern Partnership – an attempt to set up a new sort of structured relationship with the obviously (more or less) ‘European’ parts of the former Soviet Union which (unlike the three Baltic states) have not made it into the European Union: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova.

The very broad idea is to create some multilateralism as between these countries themselves and between them and the EU, thereby complementing the ‘bilateralism’ of the EU’s relations with them individually under the existing European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP).

Angela Merkel alone represented Western EU Bigs – her opposite numbers from France, UK, Spain and Italy did not bother to attend, in the UK’s case a measure of how far down unhappy Gordon Brown’s To Do list such strategic issues now come.

RFE/RL have a handy guide to this development:

What will change after the Prague summit for the individual partner countries?

The short answer is: nothing. To advance links with the EU, each country will have to convince the bloc individually of its suitability. The main forum for this discussion will be the ENP, but also increasingly association agreement talks — which are currently under way with Ukraine, soon to be launched with Moldova, and with Georgia and Armenia to follow in the slightly more distant future. The process for Azerbaijan has yet to get off the ground. Belarus, on the other hand, will still need to qualify for the ENP first — which means instituting democratic reforms — before it can set out on the same path.

The Summit featured the usual shifty EU shuffling around the issue of whether these countries are ‘European’ at all:

A reference to “European” countries was replaced with the formula “eastern European partners”. Diplomats suggested that some EU member states objected to the term “European” because it might be seen as a signal that the EU recognised their ambitions for membership.

Huh?

Because since the Maastricht Treaty (Article 49):

Any European State which respects the principles [sc of democracy and human rights] set out in Article 6(1) may apply to become a member of the Union

Various other criteria have been added since then. But the core requirement for lodging an application to join is to be a European country respectful of the principle of behaving nicely.

Which means that those EU countries which do not want any more enlargement from ‘the East’ have to battle to avoid any such countries being described by the EU as ‘European’, since once that description is agreed they are on the escalator grinding inexorably towards eventual membership (if that is what those countries themselves want).

Hence the debate in eg France about Turkey: is it a ‘European’ country at all?

And what of all those territories west of the Urals which have been oppressed and brutalised by Russian/Soviet imperial rule for centuries? Even if they can be thought to be just about European in geographical terms, surely they are no longer ‘European’ in their culture and instincts?

OK, OK – they aren’t ‘Asian’ like all those benighted  ‘Stans. But let’s be realistic – aren’t they, well, something in-between – something ‘other’? And if we try to make the European point too obviously anyway, won’t we annoy the Russians and all those Russian-speaking people in these countries?

This argument rumbles on unhappily. But for all the nugatory immediate practical difference it makes, this latest development is an important change. It creates a new nascent pattern of thinking both in Brussels and in Moscow and in every other capital between them.

These six countries now have a format for meeting outside the Commonwealth of Independent States grouping dominated by Russia, and for talking about Europeanisation with fellow Europeans without Russia being there. A major psychological shift for all concerned.

For centuries the military and administrative and political complexion of this part of the planet has seen a tug of war between a Westernising ‘liberal’ trend and a Russianised ‘conservative’ trend.

These days Russia has determination, ruthlessness and focus but lacks resources and intrinsic appeal as a normal partner. By far the biggest country in the region and a UN P5 member, Russia of course does not do or even want to do ‘normal partnership’.

By contrast, as seen by the six Eastern Partnership countries the EU for all its problems looks like a prosperous, benign and normal place, where no-one bullies or dominates them and agreed processes count for something. 

Russia proclaims its weapons and threats and warns against ‘hostile outside influences’ entering its manly sphere of interests:

Underlining Russia’s present-day military power, troops drove trucks carrying the giant, nuclear Topol-M missiles and the latest S-400 "Triumph" air defence rockets through Red Square to gasps of admiration from the crowd of officials, veterans, officers and family members.

"It made a superb impression on me," said Maria Glavdivana, an 87-year-old World War Two veteran, her chest festooned with clinking medals. "We are showing the world our masculinity, our strength."

The feminine EU Ostrich flutters its long eyelashes knowingly at the countries of Eastern Europe, instead offering masses of tedious meetings on integration and harmonisation but with a hard currency, better shopping and a far less oppressive do-as-you’re-told atmosphere.

Russia is from Mars – the EU from Venus? Those in the middle..?