Riga summit: Amorphous partnership

Opinion by Anna van Densky

Unlike the Riga Summit of 2013, which triggered a sequence of events ending in the current Ukranian conflict, this year's meeting of the EU and six Eastern Partnership (EaP) contries did not contain any substantial challenges to struggle towards. On the contrary, the ambitious project of integrating the former Soviet Republics into the EU has become amorphous, falling into bilateral exchanges, without any inspiring perspective. Representing more of a patchwork than a grouping with the six partners of the weakened-by-its-own-problems EU, it did not receive much incentive to prefer West over East, especially in view of the upcoming Chinese Silk Road, which will upgrade the value of the Russian-EurAsian economic union. Without a clear concept and a strategy swinging from passion to lethargy, the EaP has clearly become a 'has been'.

Today, one can hardly explain what unites the six countries into a partnership programme, except for their common Soviet and Russian past. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine have too little in common to built a united approach vis-a-vis the EU. With Ukraine and Georgia eager to hear any hint of the EU membership perspective; self-sufficient Azerbaijan resting on its huge Caspian oil fields; tiny Moldova, shattered by a giant money-laundering scandal, but already enjoying a visa-free regime, and; Belarus, led by 'the last dictator of Europe' rebranded into the 'dove of peace' hosting Minsk talks. With all this striking variety, the framework of the project has become too loose to define.

However one thing is certain; it was the overambitious EU plans of galloping integration of Ukraine, without talking into consideration the opinion of the Russian-speaking population, that led to the change of the DNA of the Partnership, confirming in the eyes of the Kremlin its image as an 'anti-Russian' plot of the Swedish-Polish historical foes. This is an image that will continue to create obstacles on the way, as confidence will not be rebuilt overnight. This is lamentable for the Partnership's future, which could have been bright if it had pursued a harmonious midway of development between the EU and Eurasian Union, but the idea of the 'Finlandization' of Ukraine, as coined by Henry Kissinger, has vanished in the explosions of the battlefields of Donbass. If previously on multiple occasions President Putin confirmed his acceptance of the integration plans, from Maidan onwards, attitudes have been changed forever.

Moreover, the Maidan protests cast a long shadow, reaching even as far as the Caspian sea, where President Alyev waged a crackdown on opposition figures and human-rights activists to exclude even a distant perspective of any kind of civil unrest, especially concerned with the high risks of Islamization. This attitude chilled the relationship with the EU in spite of a great deal of interest in constructing pipelines from Baku, diversifying energy roots and suppliers. Azerbaijan's disenchantment with the EU's 'mentor' tone became obvious with the absence of President Alyev in Riga. There is also an undercurrent of frustration with the immobility of the EU in moving the Nagorno-Karabach conflict resolution forward – this striking passivity is in contrast with the intensity of talks and even sanctions in attempts to keep break-away Donbass within Ukraine.

Paradoxically, the 'attentive' Partners did not win many favours, in spite of their zeal and eagerness to follow the EU's guidelines. The other Caucausus patner – Georgia – did its utmost to be granted visa liberalization, but in vain.

Armenia, which showed itself as an 'omnivore' in receiving financial assistance from both the EU and Eurasian Union, has formulated its position in a bluntly materialistic fashion without the slightest interest in making political choices between Europe and Russia. It is in profound need of Russian security guarantees; in the Nagorno-Karabach conflict, it is still more than happy to receive funding from the EaP, which it did simultaneously upon entering the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union in January 2015.

Without being ironic towards this position, deprived of any ideological lining or involvement in a favourable 'European values' debate, the Armenian position seems the most adequate within the upcoming Teutonic change on the continent.

Meanwhile the Chinese, being not even half so much involved in the public relations of promoting their civilizational values like the Europeans, are working hard investing $70 billion into the Silk Road project, which aims to connect Shangai with Berlin. This endeavour will forever change the rapport de force pumping oxygen into everything coming from the rich and dynamic East, including the attractivness of the Eurasion Union. However, there is no need  for the EaP to fear the resurrection of the Russian Empire, as the rising Chinese superpower will overwhelm them all.

Share this article: