Attempts to Push Russia out of Eastern Europe Trigger Crises

Events in Moldova and Ukraine testify to the de facto failure of the Eastern Partnership (EaP) as a project on the Europeanization and democratization of these countries. Not infrequently, this failure is attributed to Russia’s resistance.

The Eastern Partnership countries are located in the important border space between the two gravitational centers of Europe – the European Union (EU) and Russia. Each pursues its own interests and development goals. They often compete and should follow certain rules. The EaP has seen failure as the EU has forced its six partners to make a tough choice: either you’re with us (Europe) or against us (Russia).

Instead of negotiating common rules of conduct in this fragile area, the EU has tried to push Russia from it. The fragility of the space began to grow, but instead of slowing down and looking around, the EU took a winner-take-all approach. Ukraine is the strongest example. The West has backed one group against another and then approved the overthrow of the legally elected president. It was naïve to assume that Moscow would just sit and watch from the sidelines. In fact, the EU initiated the transition from relations of cooperation to those of confrontation. Moscow did not start this.

At this point both sides switched to relations of confrontation and refused to build a bridge that could connect them in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. Judging by events so far, this situation will last for at least a decade. This is a tangible span of time, strategically sensitive for all participants in the process.

It is reasonable to ask what the EU can offer its partners in the long run. What results will EaP cooperation produce in 20 or 30 years? Even if some of these countries could join the EU, none of their systemic problems, such as weak government institutions, corruption and inefficiency would be resolved. In the meantime, the destruction of ties with Russia will continue to be felt. This is why an attempt to sell the EaP to these countries for such a high price looks dubious. People in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia are paying for it from their own pockets.

Strategically, the EaP has made no tangible achievements. Here are its intermediate results: ties with Russia are destroyed; Ukraine is split; Euro hopefuls in Moldova and Georgia are disappointed; while Armenia, Azerbaijan and Belarus are drifting away. It is time for the EU to think about the results of its efforts.

In some countries, such as Ukraine, the refusal to sign an association agreement led to Maidan, while in other states no blood was spilled. The EaP countries have different levels of fragility – a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. In 25 years the political forces of Ukraine have failed to agree on what its genuine national interests should be. The political crisis led to a civil war. There were reasons for this but it was not inevitable. Western support for Maidan radicals sharply eliminated most scenarios for possible resolution of the situation.

States with a consolidated establishment and a consensus on pragmatic interests – Armenia, Belarus and Azerbaijan – emerged in better shape from this complicated period. It is difficult to exert pressure on powerful politicians or try to make them pay heavily for little return. They judge everything by the yardstick of practicality and this is why they resisted the temptation of accepting simple solutions to complicated issues.

Brussels and Washington try to “discipline” the CIS countries, but this kind of pressure rarely has the desired effect. Take Azerbaijan, for instance. The EU and the United States are toughening their rhetoric toward Baku. Azerbaijan maintains an equidistant policy with Russia and the West and pursues balanced policy in the context of the Ukrainian crisis – primarily in its own interests. Russia and Azerbaijan are following parallel courses – they do not have many common interests and are not going to pool their efforts in an integration bloc at this point.

Indicatively, Russia is not trying to exploit Azerbaijani-Western tensions to draw Baku into the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Moscow builds allied relations only with those countries that are striving for an alliance with it consciously and voluntarily. Nothing is worse than a hesitant ally. This is why Ukraine’s membership in the CIS and the Eurasian Economic Space has never been productive. It cannot be a reliable partner in the EAEU for the same reason. In perspective, Ukraine’s ambivalent attitudes may also affect the EU.

Azerbaijan has found its place in the regional economic system and is content with it so far. Russia will not resort to artificial incentives to draw Baku into “the orbit of its influence.” Moscow believes that the smart people in Baku will determine their own approach to national development. That said, Russia is not pushing anyone away. If Azerbaijan is interested, forms of extensive cooperation can be discussed.

Despite its criticism of Azerbaijan, the West is discussing energy projects with it that are aimed at circumventing Russia. For all the importance of a political background, it is the economic market that overrides everything here. If enough cheap oil is found in the Caspian Sea that can be delivered with less expense to the EU while bypassing Russia, no obstacles will prevent the West from implementing this project. The problem is that there is no cheap oil in the Caspian Sea. As for human rights violations, they are no problem for Western leaders. French President Francois Hollande ostentatiously refused to attend the opening of the 2014 Olympics because he condemned the violation of the rights of sexual minorities in Russia. Instead he went to Saudi Arabia to discuss an arms contract. Interestingly, he never recalled the right of minorities during his stay there.

A number of CIS countries – Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia – are striving to develop a constructive long-term strategy and to pool their efforts. There are prospects for the expansion of the EAEU and for deepening cooperation with major regional players –Iran, Indonesia and India. In May 2015 Kyrgyzstan joined the EAEU, and Tajikistan is about to follow suit. Last year the EAEU signed a free trade agreement with Vietnam. It is negotiating the same agreement with India and Iran and has launched talks with Israel and South Korea. The EAEU is already one of the world’s largest markets -- 176 million people. Its aggregate GDP is about $2.2 trillion and annual foreign trade totals about $700 billion. These impressive figures allow the EAEU to draft a program of strategic development for a generation ahead. There are grounds to believe that in the next few years other countries will join the EAEU, which will enjoy preferential trade agreements with major partners, primarily China and the EU.
Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.