• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
{
  "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

In The Media
Carnegie Europe

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.

Link Copied
By Judy Dempsey
Published on Oct 28, 2015

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.

This article was originally published on The Moscow Times.

About the Author

Judy Dempsey

Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe

Dempsey is a nonresident senior fellow at Carnegie Europe

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Europe Needs to Hear What America is Saying

      Judy Dempsey

  • Commentary
    Babiš’s Victory in Czechia Is Not a Turning Point for European Populists

      Judy Dempsey

Judy Dempsey
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Judy Dempsey
Foreign PolicyEconomyRussiaEuropeWestern EuropeGermanyIran

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

  • Commentary
    The Impact of U.S. Sanctions and Tariffs on India’s Russian Oil Imports

    This piece examines India’s response to U.S. sanctions and tariffs, specifically assessing the immediate market consequences, such as alterations in import costs, and the broader strategic implications for India’s energy security and foreign policy orientation.

      Vrinda Sahai

  • Paper
    India-China Economic Ties: Determinants and Possibilities

    This paper examines the evolution of India-China economic ties from 2005 to 2025. It explores the impact of global events, bilateral political ties, and domestic policies on distinct spheres of the economic relationship.

      Santosh Pai

  • Commentary
    NISAR Soars While India-U.S. Tariff Tensions Simmer

    On July 30, 2025, the United States announced 25 percent tariffs on Indian goods. While diplomatic tensions simmered on the trade front, a cosmic calm prevailed at the Sriharikota launch range. Officials from NASA and ISRO were preparing to launch an engineering marvel into space—the NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR), marking a significant milestone in the India-U.S. bilateral partnership.

      Tejas Bharadwaj

  • Commentary
    TRUST and Tariffs

    The India-U.S. relationship currently appears buffeted between three “Ts”—TRUST, Tariffs, and Trump.

      Arun K. Singh

  • Commentary
    Indian Airstrikes in Pakistan: May 7, 2025

    On May 7, 2025, between 1:05 and 1:30 a.m. (IST), airstrikes carried out by the Indian Air Force hit nine locations inside Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK). It was codenamed Operation Sindoor.

      Rudra Chaudhuri

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.