Republic Aeon

The European Union's High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy Josep Borrell NEW DELHI: EU foreign and security policy chief Josep Borrell dismissed Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov's claim that countries are suffering due to the West's response to the Ukraine crisis on Friday, stating that it is "incredible that someone could lie...in this fashion." Borrell, who was in New Delhi to attend the G20 foreign ministers' meeting and participate in the Raisina Dialogue, also discussed the EU's efforts to establish stronger trade and technology ties with India in an interview. Extracted excerpts: You participated in a frantic G20 foreign ministers meeting that concluded without a joint communique. Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, has blamed the West for the conflict in Ukraine and stated that other countries are suffering as a result of the West's response. Everyone is aware that the European fleet is obstructing Ukrainian grain exports, and everyone is aware that our vessels were obstructing Ukrainian grain exports, correct? Who was preventing cereals from leaving Ukraine? Russian naval forces. Who infiltrated the Ukraine? Has Russia been invaded by a third party? No. This is a complete denial of reality, in my opinion. Lavrov inhabits an alternate universe. Who was attacked? Who prevented Ukrainian cuisine from reaching Africans? Who has caused problems for the global economy? ... the claim that Russia was defending the West's attacks and that the consequences are being caused by European sanctions – it's unfathomable that someone could deceive about this. Concerned that the lack of consensus at the G20 foreign ministers' meeting, which was centred on Ukraine, could detract from the G20's other challenges? This conflict was not precipitated by a natural disaster; it was initiated by a deliberate decision. Hence, let's refer to this as the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We are aware that there are many other problems and catastrophes in the world, including economic issues, inflation, and escalating energy and food prices. The fact that we are supporting Ukraine does not imply that we are forsaking or ignoring . We continue to engage in the same activities as before the conflict. But it appears like people take it for granted. ALSO READ : G20 foreign ministers meet: Russia condemns Western ‘blackmail, threats’ over Ukraine war In addition to what we have done for Ukraine, not a single euro has been diverted from another source to Ukraine. There have been additional expenditures. We remain dedicated to our engagement with everyone in the globe, especially with our partners and the most vulnerable nations. We are the largest cooperative organisation in the globe. We are the largest contributor to humanitarian assistance. We have the largest climate change budget. Foreign minister Lavrov also stated that one of the reasons Russia did not sign a joint statement was that since the G20 Summit in 2022, many things have changed and the Bali consensus does not reflect the current situation. Things have significantly worsened. The distinction is that the conflict has been ongoing whereas Russia is currently destroying Ukraine. The Russian Army has performed very poorly and has been retreated. Now that they cannot subjugate the territory, they are simply bombing and destroying it daily. Perhaps Lavrov mentioned this as one of the most significant distinctions between Bali and the present. India has ambitious G20 proposals for assisting the rest of the globe, particularly the Global South. How do you envision the EU and India collaborating to accomplish these objectives? India is becoming a significant geopolitical actor. It is quite evident given its economic development, size as the world's most populous nation, and fifth-largest GDP. It is one of the geopolitical actors with whom we wish to have a stronger relationship. Even though we are devoting considerable political, financial, and military resources to supporting Ukraine, we are not oblivious to global events. We are aware of India's concerns regarding climate change, digitalization, growth, and destitution. Before the conflict, we were good partners with India, and we will be even better partners after the war. Russia and India have a very robust strategic partnership and defence and energy ties. Does the EU intend to assist India in diversifying its sources of energy and military hardware? The new India-EU Trade and Technology Council (TTC) may be able to aid in such endeavours. We wish to increase our technological and commercial ties with India. However, since you bring it up, we are not at all concerned about India's crude purchases from Russia. If they can purchase it at a lower price, you will benefit. Our objective is to reduce and diminish Russia's financial capacity, specifically their income from energy sales. However, we are aware that the oil market must be balanced, and if nobody in the world purchased Russian oil, we would be in difficulty because the market would be extremely unbalanced. Therefore, it is not a concern for us and beneficial for India if India can purchase Russian oil at a lower price. But would you strive to increase trade and technology links through the TTC, perhaps in terms of defence and new critical technologies? This is our intention and the mission of the TTC. It is in our best interest to become a stronger partner with India. It is a matter of self-interest rather than solidarity. We seek engagement with an emerging power such as India, knowing full well that the world in which we will live is already multipolar and that India will be one of the poles of this multipolarity. We Europeans aspire to be a pole, and if we wish for the world to be not only multipolar but also multilateral, we must ensure that the poles are in close contact with one another in order to create peace and prosperity together. The European pole must establish stronger economic, technological, and political ties with the Indian pole because India is expanding its geopolitical capabilities. Now that Russia's aggression against Ukraine has created this duality between the West and Russia, we must make everyone aware that this war is not between Russia and the West, nor is Russia defending itself against an attack that never occurred. It relates to the United Nations Charter and the principles that govern our peaceful coexistence. This is the crux of the issue, and we urge everyone to make it plain to Russia that they oppose this act of aggression. What has transpired thus far in the India-EU negotiations for agreements on free trade, investments, and geographical indications, and do you have a timetable for their conclusion? I believe no one has . I've been speaking with my acquaintance, India's foreign minister. I am aware that both sides are interested in this. On the new geopolitical terrain and with this new multipolarity, these trade relationships will need to be developed while seeking complementarities and avoiding excessive dependencies. Because the global market has demonstrated that trade is beneficial, it is a win-win situation when it enhances economic performance. However, we must avoid dependence similar to that with Russia. One of the most remarkable aspects of this war is that we have reduced our dependence on energy. Before the conflict, forty percent of our gas came from Russia, but now it's almost zero. The same can be said about coal and hydrocarbons. We must pay attention to complementarity in energy and digitalization, which will be the privileged fields of cooperation that enable both of us to benefit from our relationship without falling into harmful dependencies. The Indo-Pacific is a focus for both India and Europe. Additionally, India views the Indo-Pacific in terms of Chinese challenges. How can India and the EU collaborate in this area, and what can the EU do to assist India in overcoming these challenges? In this century, the Indo-Pacific will be the stage where history is written. No longer is it the Atlantic or central Europe. The fault lines of humanity will be in the Pacific, where the conflict between China and the United States will occur. We have presented an Indo-Pacific strategy that how we will interact with regional nations. We do not want to view the Indo-Pacific solely through the lens of conflict between the United States and China. I believe there is also ample space for complementarity. The Indo-Pacific consists of more than just China. Southeast Asia has thriving economies, as evidenced by the increasing capacity of nations such as Vietnam. The significance of our relationship with India in this Indo-Pacific strategy cannot be overstated. Again, we note that India has the largest population and the fifth-largest economy on the planet. By the end of this decade, the economy could be the third largest. How could the Europeans therefore not have India on their radar? Certainly, we have it, and we are well aware that our future will depend heavily on the Indo-Pacific region becoming a peaceful region, free of the tensions we have been living with on the European front, and on efforts to calm, control, and avert a conflict between the United States and China. In addition, China will be a major geopolitical power. That this occurs peacefully, integrating the new global power that China and India will represent. The entire order must acknowledge that the world has changed significantly since 1945, when India was still a colony and China did not exist economically. In the past seventy-five years, the world has undergone remarkable change. I believe that this is the greatest change in the annals of humanity, as well as the greatest shift of technological and economic capacity from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Is it possible for India and the EU to work together to assure climate justice and a transition to a low-carbon economy, particularly by encouraging developed nations to provide financial and technological assistance to the Global South? The energy transition necessary to combat climate change must be a just one. If not, it will not occur. If we cannot provide the world's impoverished with clean, affordable energy, they will use an alternative source. We cannot demand that two-thirds of humanity cease development due to climate change. We must provide a solution that combines their development, which will require significantly more energy, and the requirement that this energy be of a distinct type. In economic terms, this will constitute creative devastation. Due to technological advancements, some assets will lose value, and some capital will be annihilated. It implies that something will be lost, and losing something requires resources. We must recognise that two-thirds of humanity must increase their energy consumption. The solution will not come from a global reduction in energy consumption. We, the developed world, can afford to consume less because our consumption is excessive and inefficient. However, two-thirds of humanity must increase their consumption because their degree of development is so low that it cannot be reduced further. 600 million individuals in Africa have never seen an electric light bulb. How do I convince them to consume less? I cannot reduce my consumption if I am not consuming anything. The central concern is how to provide energy that is both affordable and environmentally friendly. The future of the struggle against climate change will be determined by the two-thirds of humanity that is still energy-hungry. Are you concerned that the Ukraine conflict will ultimately suffocate all efforts to resolve the other issues you mentioned? Well, Ukraine does not represent all of the world's problems. Unfortunately, hundreds of millions of people do not reside in Ukraine, and they face numerous difficulties. However, Ukraine is a pivotal juncture in modern history. You know, the day my phone called at 5 a.m. and a voice informed me that they were bombing Kyiv, I realised that history had turned a page and that we were entering a new world, a world with fierce competition and where war was once again a reality – for us Europeans, war had been a distant memory. And international relations will be considerably more difficult. And power politics was approaching in a manner that posed a significant threat to humanity. Consequently, Ukraine does not represent all of humanity's issues. However, Ukraine is a pivotal moment in our history. Depending on how the conflict concludes, the world will be drastically altered. However, we will provide Ukraine with as much assistance as it requires because the international community should not tolerate and cannot afford the law of the stronger, the law of the gun. Because if this occurs in Ukraine, it will occur elsewhere tomorrow. This is the most compelling argument I can make to all of my opponents: if the aggressor prevails, the world will become a very perilous place.

More Stories