All or Nothing
In
politics or diplomacy it is seldom, if ever, that anything could be reduced to a
matter of "all or nothing". Yet that's how Russian Prime Minister
Dmitry Medvedev saw the choice before Ukraine.
He
was laying down the stark choice Russia would give its biggest neighbor
(population 46 million) in the post-Soviet space. The context was the momentous
decision by the Ukrainian government to approve the text of the country's
Association of Agreement with the European Union.
Moscow
had fought a rearguard battle to preempt the development. The future trajectory
of Ukraine's EU enterprise is poised to become a fateful issue in Russia's
troubled relations with the West. Medvedev used blunt language:
The situation is
quite simple: accession to the Customs Union will be practically closed for our
Ukrainian colleagues if they sign the Association Agreement with the EU states.
The
Ukrainian leadership hopes to sign the Association Agreement at the EU's
Eastern Partnership summit due to be held in Vilnius, Lithuania, on November
28-29.
Ukraine is not a member of the Moscow-led Customs Union (at present composed of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia), but Medvedev added that that even the grouping's special partnership regime will not apply to Ukraine after its EU integration. Moscow had envisaged that the regime would incrementally lure Ukraine into the Customs Union tent.
Ukraine is not a member of the Moscow-led Customs Union (at present composed of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia), but Medvedev added that that even the grouping's special partnership regime will not apply to Ukraine after its EU integration. Moscow had envisaged that the regime would incrementally lure Ukraine into the Customs Union tent.
The
Customs Union is Ukraine's number one trade partner, with a two-way turnover of
US$63 billion last year, which accounted for 36% of its overall exports.
Evidently,
Moscow is drawing new battle lines. The Russian calculus shows that the war is
not yet lost, and Moscow cannot afford to lose, either. The EU is an elusive
enemy, which slithers away in daylight but then is also never too far away,
leaving Moscow guessing how tenacious it could be when it comes to Ukraine.
Besides, the EU also happens to be Russia's partner.
All
the same, Moscow would factor in that the Ukrainian public opinion is divided
over the issue. Half the population supports the EU integration but there is an
ethnic and regional divide here with the Russian communities in the eastern
regions bordering Russia opposed to the gravitation away from Moscow toward
Brussels.
This
contrarian nature of national opinion finds reflection within the ruling
Regions Party and the Communist Party and gives a plausible basis for Moscow to
work on as the next presidential election approaches in 2015. Then there are
the Ukrainian oligarchs who make big money in Russia and there are invisible
cords that tie them to corridors of power in Moscow.
Ukraine's
geography becomes crucial for Russia's perennial need of a buffer zone
vis-a-vis the West and the fear is that alongside the EU integration there
could also be membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Moreover, Moscow's Eurasian Union project, which aims at integrating the former
Soviet republics under its leadership, loses its shine without Ukraine's
inclusion.
Over
and above, Ukraine is a key interlocutor in the transcendental Orthodox unity
of Eastern Slavs, which in turn provides stimulus for the Kremlin's ideology of
conservative nationalism - an ideology that also seeks a distinct international
role and, therefore, becomes a template of Russian foreign policy.
Lest
it got overlooked, it was on the Dnieper that the original baptism of Rus was
held in 988 when Grand Prince Vladimir accepted Orthodox Christianity as the
religion of his lands. Vladimir's conversion also began a tradition that has
run virtually unbroken throughout the history of the Russian Orthodox Church,
namely, of religion serving political interests.
Suffice
to say, Russia can be expected to use all its powers of persuasion - and
coercion if need be - to sway Ukraine toward Eurasia. But then, this runs into
the West's geopolitical agenda of extending the NATO alliance system to
Ukraine, which was the after all raison d'etre of the US-sponsored color
revolution in Kiev in 2006.
The
objective is to create on Russia's western doorstep - indeed, in the very heart
of "Rus" - a western liberal democracy that will also be a NATO
member country.
Interestingly,
Putin last week reappointed the colorful Kremlin ideologue of the past decade,
Vladislav Surkov - variously compared by his Western critics and detractors to
Rasputin in the Czarist court, Mikhail Suslov of the Brezhnev era or France's
Cardinal Richelieu - as his advisor, and the Moscow rumor mill promptly added
that he will be in charge of the mission to persuade Ukraine to look eastward.
It was Surkov who expounded the ideology of Russia's "sovereign
democracy".
The
EU has so far acted coyly. It would encourage Kiev to keep the flame of hope of
EU membership burning but is in no tearing hurry to make haste in this regard,
which would involve extending huge financial subsidies that Brussels can ill
afford at present.
Thus,
EU commissioner Stefan Fule recently signaled that import tariffs could be
lowered for Ukraine to compensate for any loss of Russian market but it will be
up to Ukraine to perform competitively in the European market.
The
Russian strategy, on the other hand, will be to exploit this EU ambivalence (which
also stems from concerns regarding Kiev's dismal record of cracking down on
political opposition, rampant corruption and appalling human rights record.)
To
be sure, Russia will play on the gnawing doubts in the Ukrainian mind that its
EU expectations are unrealistic, whereas, Moscow is offering Customs Union
membership, which is tangible and of immediate benefit. But the big question is
how far Russian diplomacy will go to push the envelope. The Ukrainians have a
reputation of stubbornness.
A
Kremlin adviser Sergei Glazyev openly warned over the weekend in Yalta at a
meeting of European politicians, "Russia is the main creditor of Ukraine.
Only with customs union with Russia can Ukraine balance its trade." He did
not rule out there could be Russian sanctions if Ukraine signs the agreement in
Vilnius.
Glazyev
warned there could be a political and social cost of EU integration insofar as
separatist movements might spring up in the Russian-dominated eastern and
southern regions of Ukraine, which may in turn prompt Russian intervention. He
said,
We [Russia] don't want to use any kind of blackmail. This is a question for the Ukrainian people. But legally speaking, by signing this agreement of association with the EU, the Ukrainian government violates the treaty on strategic partnership with Russia.
Glazyev explained that that Russia would also be
compelled to regard as void Ukraine's borders according to the treaty
provisions. That is to say, Russia could no longer guarantee Ukraine's status
as a state and could possibly intervene if the Russian regions of the country
appealed to Moscow directly for help. He concluded,
Signing this [EU] agreement will lead to political and social unrest. The living standard will decline dramatically ... there will be chaos ... The Ukrainian authorities make a huge mistake if they think that the Russian reaction will become neutral in a few years. This will not happen.
Arguably, "Old Europe" has so far had no stomach to precipitate
issues, unlike "New Europe", especially Poland. But that could be
changing in the new climate of rising tensions in Russia's relations with the
US and the West in general.
It is a matter of time now for the West to shed its ambivalence and to
seriously work on Ukraine's integration. For both sides - Russia and the West -
the stakes are high. Ukraine's "defection" at once deprives Russia of
"strategic depth."
On the other hand, the West's project does not end with Ukraine's
integration, but its aim extends to challenging the edifice that Putin hopes to
build around the Eurasian Union idea.
The West has never been in doubt that Russia's integration will become
feasible only through its transformation as a market-based liberal democracy
according to European norms. The best hope of the West would be that the
baptism on the Dnieper would lure the Russian people too to have their own
baptism on the Moscow River.
No comments:
Post a Comment