Category: 2019

Ahead of the summit of the [Russian-led] Eurasian Economic Union [EEU] to be held in Yerevan on 1 October, Moscow is taking steps, whose content and easily anticipated consequences show once again the real motives for the creation of the EEU.

If it was created to achieve “integration”, “well-being”, and “development”, there should be practical steps that confirm this. In the meantime, they, these steps, are leading in a completely opposite direction.

The first thing to say is that when they speak at the drop of a hat about the use of the European experience in the process of integration in the EEU area, a question arises as to what the coal and steel of the EEU are, as it was the unification of these markets that was the start of a common economic area in Europe. There is no answer to this question and there is not going to be any answer either.

Simple problems are simply not resolved and Moscow is not interested in anything other than discrimination in favour of Russian producers and privileged sales of Russian products “that meet Eurasian standards” in the markets of post-Soviet countries. Any proposal to liberalise some spheres encounters Moscow’s demand of ceding sovereignty to “supranational” bodies, which is Moscow again or resorting to protectionist tools to restrict imports from third countries, if it turns out that these kinds of goods are produced in Russia, say, automobiles, or from time to time, they release “reports” on a “common currency” or the “rouble zone”. In the meantime, proposals to liberalise, for example, the markets of gas, oil, and oil products are still “discussed” and they are going to be “discussed” until Moscow “squeaks out” the remaining fragments of sovereignty and the energy systems of the countries that are part of the EEU.

However, this does not lead either to well-being or development, as the most terrible thing that can happen in the post-Soviet area are precisely well-being and development, as this may raise questions within Russia to the grouping that has captured the country. And it is not only the economy that is a problem. “We want things like in Armenia!” protesting Russians are already saying in different cities today. They say this after they saw what happened in Armenia and what the standards were during the election to the National Assembly of the country. It has been said on many occasions that such Armenia is a constant irritant for the Russian government no matter how close a partner it may be (as Armenians have no other Armenia for Moscow and will never have it) and in the eyes of the Kremlin, the example obviously forebodes nothing good.

The Kremlin can imagine only in a bad dream what happened in Yerevan in 2018 to happen, say, in Minsk or Astana (which has become Nur-Sultan since then). They would have explained to Moscow there too that these are domestic processes in Belarus or Kazakhstan and that the two countries do not plan any geopolitical turns, revision of legal agreements in relations with Russia, and so forth.

In such conditions of shaky equilibrium, Moscow decided to take a “tricky move” ahead of the Yerevan summit. In this case, the “trick” has a concrete name – [Russian president’s former adviser] Sergei Glazyev. Who is Mr Glazyev? He is coming to do what? He was Putin’s adviser and was prominent, to put it mildly, for his particularly strange views and statements, which is not so strange for a member of the parties of [Gennady] Zyuganov, [the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation], and then the party of [Dmitry] Rogozin, [currently Russian space agency chief and founder of the Motherland (Rodina) party]. He does not conceal that he is anti-liberal, that he has the imperia complex, and that he holds in contempt the sovereignty of any post-Soviet country. At the same time, being Putin’s adviser on economic issues, he was involved in constructing the Eurasian Union as an “alternative” to the EU, giving Putin a lot of “smart” pieces of advice during the crisis in Ukraine. During the course of the crisis, it was probably necessary to listen to Glazyev and do things contrariwise or not do everything [he advised]. However, what happened has happened and Mr Glazyev is now in “top” lines of the US and European sanction lists. And now, Mr Putin has dismissed him from the post of adviser and transferred him under “command” of [current EEU head] Tigran Sargsyan as minister of the Eurasian commission to replace Tatyana Valova. It is this “bright” decision that is to be approved in Yerevan.

In the context of the foreign strategy of the Armenian government, who have announced an economic revolution, it remains unknown how this objective relates to the real, not declared, objectives and prospects of the EEU that stem from its genealogy. Is it not risky to put all your “eggs” in the Eurasian basket, thinking that “friendly” Moscow will not sleep, being happy over the economic successes achieved or to be achieved by revolutionary Armenia? The question is rhetorical, as it is obvious that Armenia is in an aquarium and Moscow will do all it can to have everything happening contrariwise, so everything will resume its natural course.

Moscow has created this Eurasian “muzzle” not in order to achieve genuine “integration”, “development of the economy”, and “improved well-being”, but to first and foremost preserve corrupt systems and corrupt regimes in post-Soviet countries, prevent their collapse or transformation, ensure Russia’s domination in post-Soviet countries, which should have certain “obligations”, leading them to isolation and marginalisation, and obtain both the stick and the carrot as a lever.. What impact has this had on Armenia’s security and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? Recall [fighting in Karabakh in April] 2016…