Such a paradox should not become common practice. In practice, the trilateral ministerial meeting focused mainly on one task – “to achieve practical solutions to the concerns raised by Russia” – and, as a result, the agreement was postponed until January 2016.
#Si vis pacem para bellum free#
As part of the Minsk package, Russia was included in trilateral talks on the EU–Ukraine Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA). Even if the EaP is a bilateral format of cooperation between the EU and six partners, Russia-backed separatists and Russia’s military equipment on the territory of one of the EaP countries serve as a reminder that the Kremlin is already de facto involved in the process of EaP planning. The fragility of the Minsk agreement – which scarcely attempts to maintain a ceasefire between Russia-backed separatist groups and Ukrainian forces in eastern Ukraine – made EU leaders geopolitically cautious in respect of any ambitious messages towards the EaP. Yet the set of tools used in Brussels’ response has to be different it should move from reactive to proactive diplomacy. Given that, since Vilnius, it has become quite apparent that Russia and the EU have completely different views about the future of their neighbours, the EU has to face reality – it is already in the game of geopolitical rivalry. Up to now, the EU has taken an anticipatory and reactive role due to its being tied to the bureaucratic processes of the EaP.
![si vis pacem para bellum si vis pacem para bellum](https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/3/7-si-vis-pacem-para-bellum-vidddie-publyshd.jpg)
EU leaders and the EaP partners should reverse their thinking towards developing deterrence and common security, thereby accepting the reality of the Latin adage si vis pacem, para bellum (“if you want peace, prepare for war”). The Kremlin broke the maxim si vis pacem, para pactum (“if you want peace, agree to keep the peace”) by military and non-linear means, and deliberately violated the territorial integrity of a sovereign state. The fact that five out of six EaP states are already involved in territorial disputes with Russia suggests that the latter has failed to be a regional partner.
![si vis pacem para bellum si vis pacem para bellum](https://www.impericon.com/media/catalog/product/2/0/20200714_seether_cd_lg.jpg)
Russia’s aggression in Ukraine has dominated the diplomatic agenda and questioned the EaP’s ability to function without a clear understanding of the challenging strategic environment in the region. In reality, there is no need to redefine the Eastern Partnership there is, rather, a need to accept its limitations and work on the lessons learnt.