Today the issue is very different in nature

Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the European Union, weighed his words to account for his talks with Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, September 7. Reaffirming that the countries of the Union had condemned the action of the Russia in Georgia their "principles" and "beliefs", it is not closed the door continued dialogue with "our Russian friends".

The recent Summit of the twenty-seven had already marked the limits that the Union assigns "reprisals" against the Russia in the case of Georgian. In essence: a conviction, without any actual sanctions. And to ward off encirclement complex that, traditionally, feed on Russian leaders, complex reinforced the idea that the Georgia and the Ukraine (with the Crimea and Sevastopol) could join the Atlantic Alliance, Nicolas Sarkozy, said August 27: "NATO is not an adversary but a partner in the Russia."

A good-natured insurance. Indeed, the Russia, which is more Communist but not yet completely liberal, is clearly a major player on the international scene, that it would be childish to deal with condescension or casually. A horse on Europe and Asia, geography him rubbing shoulders with, to the East, the China's vastness, to the South, the Muslim world with its turbulence. An outstanding position on the geopolitical chessboard, which requires the European Union to bring its weight to maintain balances in this part of the world.

Also remains what it is called the fundamentals of the necessary cooperation between the European Union and the Russia. For a long time the Russian alliance was considered by the France as a bulwark against the German danger. Today, the issue is very different in nature. The challenges are primarily economic.

Here speakers Europe's energy needs, which will be at the heart of the discussions that the first French Minister, François Fillon, will have with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Poutine, on 19 September next in the margins of the Sochi Economic Forum.

In this field, the nuclear occupies a place of choice. If some European countries have waived, the France is inverse betting. But nuclear energy, it also requires partnerships. In this regard, the Russia deserves special attention.

Consider the example of unilateral European Declaration of Corfu in June 1994. This text was intended in theory to limit to 20 the amount of Russian exports of nuclear materials to countries of the Union. This quota is a fiction. Everyone knows. In reality, the volume of imported Russian uranium necessary for the functioning of Western and those of the countries having recently integrated EU, varies between 30 and 45. This topic is vital. Further discussions are needed on this now obsolete become limitation. What European Commissioner Andris Piebalgs acknowledged at a hearing before the French Senate last April.

Large French companies related to nuclear power took the extent of the issue. Thus, EDF, which operates 58 reactors in France, the supply of uranium is obviously a major problem. Long term with current suppliers contracts can cover the needs for a little less than twenty years. New contracts should provide this coverage to 2050-2060.

There is an interest to clarify the links with a partner such as the Russia, which has huge resources and perfectly mastered the techniques. Most other suppliers of ore cannot take advantage of such know-how. The deletion of the "lock" of Corfu would present the advantage of giving air to those who, in France, have the responsibility to imagine the energy future of the country and to draw the consequences now. Our producer Areva would have interest to anticipate changes that our European partners ask officially sooner or later, the who early in the facts. While opening the door to opportunities for mutually successful partnerships which, beyond the purely economic considerations, does not default to have a positive impact on the plan policy.