The Russia-EU summit which took place in the Russian city of Sochi last week, was another foreign policy debacle for the European Union. Of course, the EU did reach a number of technical agreements with the Kremlin on issues like visa facilitation, but those had been on the agenda for several years and even the disaster management team of Solana, Barosso and Schüssel, which entertained the Russians in Sochi, could not have failed to sign them (though Solana, according to a Russian paper, was drunk during most of the ceremonial proceedings).

The Sochi summit revealed that the EU is unable to negotiate with Russia not just about energy, but about virtually any subject that is unpleasant to the Kremlin. Nobody could have captured this bizarre relationship better than Vladimir Putin, who compared Russia’s position in this dialogue to that of a little boy holding sweets in his sweaty fist and asking what he might receive in return for them. Putin answered the question himself: there are no strategic assets for him in Europe, so the Europeans should think of something else.

There is not much space for creative interpretation here. The Kremlin wants Brussels to shelve a host of topics – particularly those that make Moscow blush – until better times. And while the EU might feel very tempted to do so, it must realize that shunning away from the thorny subjects that defined its relationship with the Kremlin in the past will only aggravate its dependence on Russia. That will leave the United States as the only champion of democracy and human rights in the ex-USSR region.

The EU’s acquiescence during the Sochi summit was a bleak parody of its previous stance on Russia during the Yeltsin and early Putin administrations. Back then the EU’s potency was venerated in Moscow; its criticism was always poignant, sharp, and spicy. The war in Chechnya, the lack of transparency in Russia’s economy, and the general instability in the country were regularly condemned by Brussels. Not anymore.

Today Russia is rocked by regular beatings and murders of foreigners by fascist youth groups, intolerance for sexual minorities, the jailing of outspoken Russian scientists, the ongoing looting of Russia’s once leading private company, and the consolidation of formerly independent media in the hands of the state-controlled companies. Nevertheless the EU prefers to talk to Russia about its own problems, and leave it to the Americans, much less dependant on Russia’s energy, to speak out against the Kremlin’s assault on democracy.

Dick Cheney’s assessment of Russia’s direction a month ago – despite some flaws in the delivery and the subsequent itinerary of his trip – was spot on, yet nobody in the EU has dared to repeat it. The downgrading of Russia’s status from “Partially Free” to “Not Free” by Freedom House was hardly accidental. The abolition of the governors’ elections, other draconian changes to the electoral code, and the crackdown on NGOs are alarming signs of Russia’s future direction. The potential turn towards militarism – with Putin recently warning that the arms race might not be over yet – warrants that the siloviki group around him want a second chance in their competition with the West.

Russia’s behavior in its own backyard is just as dismal. Moscow persists in interfering in the domestic affairs of Georgia and Moldova, stealthily sustaining the separatist conflicts there for almost 15 years and putting pressure on the two countries with harsh trade practices. Putin’s bolstering of the dictatorship in Belarus is the main factor which has kept its president in power for 12 years – and will keep him there for another 5. Not to mention the warm receptions Moscow has given to the Central Asian dictators after they murdered hundreds of their own people in massacres like Andijan.

Brussels, of course, like some national capitals, could close its eyes to all this – and is increasingly tempted to do so. To penalize Russia for its human rights violations, there is always the Council of Europe (where, ironically, Russia has just assumed the chairmanship). To speak out against Russia’s slide into authoritarianism and its support for Belarus, there is always Dick Cheney and the US State Department. To solve the frozen conflicts in the ex-USSR, there is always the UN.

The EU comes out clean all round – so why not just talk about energy security in the future, as the EU has done in Sochi? Because such a position would be equivalent to allowing 15 years of EU achievements in the post-Soviet space disappear down one of Gazprom’s pipelines. Maintaining a fair and tough stance on issues of existential importance to Russia is the only way to guarantee that the Kremlin will hold the EU in respect, not in contempt.

EU officials continue to murmur that since Russia has no aspirations to join the EU, Brussels has no real leverage over Moscow. The US, however, have never had that leverage, yet always draw Russia’s attention to its abrasive behavior that is not compatible with the status of the global superpower that it claims to be.

Instead of aspiring to join a global front with the US and seek to reverse the dismal developments in the country, the EU is looking for ways to ensure its own energy security by appeasing Putin. However, there are some lessons Europeans should heed from America’s history of bolstering energy rich dictatorships: anything but energy security was the outcome of such support.

Outsourcing Russia-bashing to others while expecting to reap the benefits of an energy partnership is a precarious strategy. Authoritarian Russia will never be a stable partner to the EU, no matter how many bilateral deals they strike. The EU should speak out about Russia’s slide into authoritarianism while the Kremlin still cares about its opinion. The longer Brussels circumvents such issues, the greater the risk that such criticism at a later point will only hit the Kremlin’s bulletproof energy jacket.