US Acts More Radically than Europeans in Regard to Ukraine

I do not consider the Eastern Partnership program promising in the form in which it was created. From the very beginning, it was clear that the main objective of its initiators in Brussels was to pull the post-Soviet countries into the orbit of the European Union as much as possible. Nobody wondered what would happen to the participating states (such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine) in the case of success or failure of the task.

There is no doubt that the tragedy of Ukraine was essentially provoked by the actions of the EU and the Eastern Partnership. Therefore, in my opinion, the conclusions about the effectiveness of the program should be made by the EU. As an integral part of Europe, Russia, along with other countries, needs to develop an agenda that will unify the whole European continent. But as long as the EU tells Russia it is not Russia’s concern and that Russia is doing wrong, the much needed process of unification will stall or even roll back, as it occurred in the case of Ukraine.

The agenda of the relationship between the EU and Russia was announced a few years ago. It included the creation of common spaces, the abolition of visas and some other steps for rapprochement, which today the EU for some reason prefers not to remember. Meanwhile, in the 1990s, Russia sincerely contributed to the construction of the united Europe without dividing lines — even though Russia was constantly being told by the EU that [the EU] was interested in Russia only when it was convenient, and that it could do without Russia when it did not need it. It was impossible to stay in such a position forever, and the relationship between the EU and Russia reached a deadlock.

By the Clichés of the Cold War

Obviously, today, countries that are not yet included in the European Union are being united in order to become stronger in their anti-Russian position. We should also consider the U.S. factor. However, the interests of the U.S and Europe do not always agree. For example, regarding the situation in Ukraine, the U.S. acts more radically than the Europeans do, for the U.S has only geopolitical interest, not economic. America will win in any case: Whether Russia and Ukraine will end up in a long lasting conflict, whether the differences between the EU and Russia will deepen even more, or whether Ukraine will disintegrate on her own — any scenario will suit the U.S. This is the case when it is very beneficial to create chaos, and then try to control it. But this situation can satisfy neither the EU nor Russia, for both countries are much closer and more tightly connected with each other. Perhaps it is equally important for both the EU and Russia to have Ukraine as an integral and a prosperous state, and a predictable partner.

EU interests in regard to Ukraine are much closer to Russia than to the U.S., no matter how paradoxical it may seem to some of the Europeans. Unfortunately, clichés of transatlantic thinking from Cold War times have not been revised in the united Europe for a long time. The world has radically changed and Russia, too, has changed and is ready to work on a new agenda. Nonetheless, we are offered the same old stamp: If you are not with us, you are against us. This is an improper alternative.

On June 27 of this year, an association agreement with the EU is scheduled to be signed. Current leaders of the three countries — Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine — have declared that they are ready to sign. Did Georgia analyze legal consequences arising from this document? We know for sure that when Ukraine under Yanukovych was signing this agreement, such analysis had not been done. This is not a question of Russia’s reaction to what is happening, but a simple fear of the consequences for a country’s decision on a firm commitment to the association. It is good if Georgia remains confident that no further obstacles to developing relations with Russia after this step will occur.

Of course, Russia is not going to threaten countries that wish to join the associate membership of the EU with any consequences. For us it is important that these countries are not introduced to any new factors that could become barriers to the preservation and development of their normal relations with Russia. Although our nations remain close and sympathetic to each other, more and more external obstacles are being created.

Russia Does Not Create Agents of Influence

For us it is clear that from the very beginning, the Eastern Partnership was conceived as anti-Russian. For some, this was the core meaning of participation in the program, while others sincerely had no idea about the level of risks that rose with this connection. One thing is clear: The program is destroying the more ambitious project of creating a truly united Europe. What is happening now in Ukraine, including things that are happening due to the Eastern Partnership, should serve as a lesson to its creators.

The easiest way out is to write off the mistakes and errors on the machinations of rivals. Whatever happens, Russia is to blame. We are often ascribed “separatist activities,” but we never created the so-called agents of influence. Rossotrudnichestvo* sought to form a circle of people abroad that on one hand understand the intentions of Russia, and on the other are involved in friendly and constructive relations with Russia’s own interests.

In my opinion, the main factor that complicates our relations with the West is unfair competition. Long before this tragic situation that has now developed in Ukraine, one of the arguments of our Western partners was that Eurasian integration and accession to the customs union is a restoration of the USSR, and Russia, they said, wants to dominate the region, using the economy as a political weapon. Such discredit of Russia was fully used during the discussion of Ukraine’s associate membership in the EU.

When we, in turn, tried to find a convincing argument for Ukraine to get closer to the Eurasian Union, we did not have any thoughts and did not make any steps to discredit the EU or to present it as a threat and a dangerous dictator. In our dialogue with Ukraine, we did not bring into the picture any third parties. Additionally, our Western partners constantly present our neighboring countries with a false choice: You’re either with Russia or with democracy. In fact, it would be far more productive to create such projects for Europe, which would benefit its people.

*Editor’s Note: Rossotrudnichestvo is the common name for the Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States, Compatriots Living Abroad and International Humanitarian Cooperation.