Judy Dempsey
{
"authors": [
"Judy Dempsey"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [
"Europe’s Eastern Neighborhood"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
"programAffiliation": "EP",
"programs": [
"Europe"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Russia",
"Europe",
"Western Europe",
"Germany",
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy",
"Economy"
]
}Source: Getty
It’s Time to Ditch the Petersburg Dialogue
The proponents of the Petersburg Dialogue believed that cooperation between Germany and Russia would increase stability in Europe. But today expectations are self-deluding.
Source: The Moscow Times
The Petersburg Dialogue is one of those leftovers of Germany's Ostpolitik whose proponents believed that cooperation between Germany and Russia would increase stability in Europe and even promote gradual political change in Russia. The dialogue was founded in 2001 by the former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder and President Vladimir Putin in order to "promote understanding between the two nations."
Over the years the Petersburg Dialogue became a mouthpiece for the Kremlin while the German participants rarely, if at all, criticized the erosion of human rights, the pressure on civil society and the increasing disregard for the rule of law in Russia.Russia's annexation of Crimea in March 2014 and its involvement in the conflict in eastern Ukraine confirmed German Chancellor Angela Merkel's view that the old German way of dealing with Russia had little or no impact on Kremlin policy.
As a result of Russia's actions in Ukraine, Merkel canceled the 2014 Petersburg Dialogue. Changes were made to the German composition of the dialogue's management committee that for years could be described as sycophantic toward Russia.But the top brass on the Russian side remained the same.
So when the Petersburg Dialogue was resumed on Oct. 22-23 in Potsdam, expectations were not only low — they were self-deluding. The dialogue's title was "Modernization as a Chance to Build a Joint European Home."
Germany and Russia are completely at odds when it comes to interpreting the meaning and implications of modernization. Germany sees it as a tool to literally modernize the Russian economy. This is not about building new factories or introducing state-of-the art technology. It is about using modernization to introduce the rule of law, transparency and accountability in the way companies are managed.
It is about having clear rules concerning property rights and procurement procedures. It is about moving the economy away from a culture of corruption, bribery and clientalism to a rules-based one.
This is exactly what Ukraine is trying to do. If German politicians publicly keep telling the government in Kiev to speed up the reforms, why can't they tell the same thing to the Kremlin?
Successive German governments have rarely been explicit about the goals of its modernization policy with Russia despite their private aspirations. Nevertheless, they pursued such a policy with Russia in the belief that over time the change in industry would eventually feed into the political system.
Berlin repeatedly warned Russia about the need to diversify, not only because of the shortsightedness in depending on energy. The longer Russia refused to diversify, the greater the damage done to other sectors. The lack of diversification also delayed the establishment of new clusters of economic growth.
Just as important, dependence on the giant energy companies that continue to enjoy a monopoly status has given little room for small and medium sized companies to prosper. Germany's warnings were ignored. By ignoring such advice, Russia is now paying a very high price for the sharp fall in energy prices. This failure to diversify is a political decision.
Diversification and modernization breeds new centers of economic and social influence. It weakens the grip of the state and creates competition. But it is exactly the idea of competition that the Kremlin does not want to encourage. Instead, for the moment, Putin prefers his interpretation of modernization. It is a view wedded to his status quo.
The idea that modernization should build a joint European home without implementing real economic reforms is delusory. That view should be buried. If and when Russia embraces the real meaning of modernization, it will be a very different place, and so will its relationship with Germany and the rest of Europe.
About the Author
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Judy Dempsey is a nonresident senior fellow at Carnegie Europe
- Europe Needs to Hear What America is SayingCommentary
- Babiš’s Victory in Czechia Is Not a Turning Point for European PopulistsCommentary
Judy Dempsey
Recent Work
Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie India
- Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026Article
This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.
Vrinda Sahai
- India’s Semiconductor Ecosystem Is Maturing—and ASML Is Taking NoticeCommentary
The ASML MoU with Tata Electronics is an indicator of how far the Indian semiconductor ecosystem has come. This ecosystem has been years in the making and represents real commercial logic.
Konark Bhandari
- India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible PathwaysArticle
A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.
Rajiv Bhatia
- Emerging From the “Zombie State” of Trade Agreements: The India-EU FTACommentary
The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead
Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki
- India’s Press Note 3 Gamble: Opening the FDI Door to ChinaArticle
On March 10, 2026, India’s Union Cabinet approved amendments to Press Note 3, a regulation that mandated government approval on all foreign direct investment (FDI) from countries sharing a land border with India. This amendment raises questions primarily about whether its stated benefits will materialize and if the risks have been adequately weighed. This piece will address the same.
Konark Bhandari