Vladimir Putin looks certain to become Russian president again. China and Iran may welcome him, but will the neighbours want his Eurasian Union?
It seems only natural that with current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin set to return as Russia’s president for another dozen years, government spokespeople have begun praising the protracted rule of Leonid Brezhnev as head of the Soviet Union. Indeed, Putin himself has said that one of his main ambitions is to create a ‘Eurasian Union’ among the former Soviet republics. Putin once called the Soviet Union’s collapse the greatest catastrophe of the 21st century, and his ambitions to recreate it could make life tough in the Asia-Pacific—and beyond.
Most Russians remember the Brezhnev years as a painfully lengthy period of ‘zastoi‘—stagnation and decay. As a result, Putin’s announcement of his intent to return to the Russian presidency—a post he held from 2000 to 2008 before handing the position (but not the power) to Dmitry Medvedev—quickly generated unflattering cartoons of him looking like the aged Brezhnev. This has prompted Putin’s normally reticent staff to defend the progress under Brezhnev in the Russian media.
More serious, though, is Putin’s unexpected proposal to create a Eurasian Union, an idea he outlined in a rare, lengthy article in a prominent Russian newspaper. Russia is already consolidating its recently formed Customs Union with Belarus and Kazakhstan. Now the intent seems to be to expand the number of members, as well as to enlarge its functions and powers. The article, while disclaiming any intent to simply restore the Soviet Union, talks about the value of consolidating the former republics into something like the European Union. The republics would coordinate their foreign, economic, and other policies—presumably under Moscow’s leadership—to enhance their (Moscow’s) global influence.
But realising Putin’s vision will prove difficult. The existing international institutions in the former Soviet bloc—which include the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the Customs Union—have found it difficult to realize concrete cooperation and sustain their momentum. Although many of the leaders of Soviet republics weren’t seeking independence in 1991, they’ve grown to enjoy their autonomy, and have generally resisted sacrificing it. Many of these newly independent states are eager to develop their relations with China or the West to balance their ties with Moscow.
In this regard, the union proposal seems aimed at reining in those former Soviet states that have so far remained outside Moscow’s control, such as Ukraine. Even though Ukraine is now headed by a government more friendly to Moscow, Ukrainian leaders are wavering over whether they should join the Customs Union or try to move closer to the EU. Putin has already indicated that Kiev can’t pursue both goals. Since March 2007, the EU and Ukraine have been negotiating a free trade agreement as part of a new Association Agreement to replace the present Partnership and Cooperation Agreement established in 1998. Putin told Ukrainian Prime Minister Nikolai Azarov that joining the Customs Union will give Ukraine some $6.5 billion to $9 billion in direct benefits through expanded industrial opportunities. Russia has considerable leverage due to the deep interdependencies between the two national economies. Most of Ukraine’s high-tech exports go to Russia. Like Moscow, the EU insists that closer integration will contribute to economic growth for Ukraine given that the EU is Ukraine’s primary commercial partner, the EU accounts for one third of Ukraine’s external trade and Ukraine will benefit from the political association. Conversely, Putin has warned that a free agreement between Ukraine and the EU would require Russia to take protective measures such as raising trade barriers between their two countries.
But it’s Georgia that is most likely to suffer from Putin’s return. Putin and Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili loathe one another, with Putin reportedly telling French President Nicholas Sarkozy that he wanted to see the Georgian hung by his testicles. Even if another Georgian replaced Saakashvili as the country’s dominant political leader, Putin is unlikely to reverse Moscow’s de facto annexation of the Georgian separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which Russian troops fully occupied in 2008. Although Moscow has formally recognized them as independent states, the Russian military is building large long-term bases in both regions. The best that might ensue when Saakashvili retires as president in 2013, if he refrains from following Putin’s lead in becoming prime minister, is that Russia might allow more visa-free travel between the separatist regions and the rest of Georgia and relax its economic blockade of Georgia.
Russia-Georgian tensions are also complicating Russia’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO), since Tbilisi is blocking Russia’s application—which must be accepted unanimously by all the other members—until Moscow acknowledges Tbilisi’s right to supervise trade with the separatist regions. In fact, Putin has always seemed less enthusiastic about WTO membership than Medvedev or former Russian Finance Minister Aleksei Kudrin, who resigned this month in protest over the Putin-Medvedev deal.
Georgia is also one issue that could derail the Russia-US reset. Many Americans naturally sympathize with Georgians as an embattled underdog seeking to promote democracy and a vibrant free economy at home, while pursuing an independent but pro-Washington foreign policy abroad, which has included sending combat troops to Iraq and now Afghanistan. The Obama administration has eliminated a previous source of tension between Moscow and Washington by effectively abandoning the George W. Bush administration’s efforts to extend near-term membership in NATO to Georgia and Ukraine. Putin railed against NATO’s expansion in his last years as president and will likely do so again if, as is possible, a future US administration resumes efforts to enlarge NATO eastward.
Photo Credit: World Economic Forum
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
shahriyar Gourgi,….shahin
Bravo;Frank im agree,
Frank
This world is no longer about ideology blocks. It is more of about conflicts of national interest, religion, culture and race.
A new Euro-Asian alliance based on that idea is reasonable. China’s national interests are very similar to Russia’s. So it makes sense to form a “block”.
Small nations who do not have block to be associated with or belongs to a block too far away to help in the case of crisis, good luck.
ozivan
For many more years to come, I think there will be :
One Superpower (US) and a few other strong powers (EU, China, Russia, India or BRICS)
esculap
are you sure that USAis still a super power?! Not so sure anymore…
Sam Smithson
Why is every move from Russia towards Customs Unions, CSTO, Eurasian Union etc deemed as bad and menacing and imperial by your hawkish anti-Russian editorialists?
Multi-lateralism and new patterns of economic and political integration are the name of the game in the 21st century. It is just logical that Russia – given its geography, history and economic interests – is just participating in this process.
Stop thinking so Cold War and 20th century. Even 19th century.
Rian
.China and Russia shuold be and are looking forward beyond borders. If a new Russia China alliance can be formed, it would be the best for both countries.We can protect each other’s back.
The_Observer
Say what you like but, for Russia, Putin was much needed after the wasted (in more ways than one) Yeltsin years.
crimsonleaf
I think the WTO angle in not joining is the correct action.
Most countries have bilateral treaties with Russia but having to join a membership organization skews the leverage of bargaining to the people bargaining from within it. Ergo since I a member have to allow you to join, I have a slight advantage at bargaining unless you do not join at all…
The other point is there is a game theory economics paper on something like this. Where everyone is part of a club and you aren’t in it, but the rules within the club limit everyone, except that one person. If that one person can interact with club members outside those club rules their leverage in bargaining is higher since that one person plays by their own rules.
The thought is having multiple transactions with multiple people within the club you are able to have a higher efficiency of trading between members as a third party since their rules might preclude them from having efficient transactions between themselves but not through you. Etc… and in similar fashion.
yang zi
International community should welcome Putin’s initiative. I envision a world order in which several big blocks dominate world. Too many small countries are running wild and causing trouble, they should be pushed to join big blocks.
Xin Đừng Nói Lời Yêu
Well talk, Yang Zi. You must be from a big block.
KMT4TW
Joining China and the North Korean “big block”? :)
nirvana
What a progressist view of the world is Yang zi’s multi-block (multi-polarity?) one!
Clearly it is not a traditional Chinese vision of how the world should be, since in this Chinese vision there was only one block, China in the middle and its vassals around. Outside this block lived the barbarious people (running wild and causing trouble).
Yang zi should avoid the use of terms like “big”, “domination”, “blocks”, etc… to make his/her vision more appealing to the wild, small, trouble-making countries, so that China does not have to “push” them to join, or to flee, China’s big (still not big enough yet to China’s taste) block. He could have use “grand”, “attraction”, “union”.
yang zi
nirvana, let’s face it, many countries are not efficient, many languages are not efficient. the world should speak one lanuages, be it English or Filipino (to me,current form of written Chinese is not efficient), this will happen in 100/200 years.
before this happens, there will be big multi polor centers, intertwined with big cooperations.
But all this will happen in a democratic fashion, like Europe. China’s role is not to dominate world, but be part of the world.
nirvana
@Yang zi,
The Europeans do not consider their Union as a “block”. What makes them stick together is not a military alliance nor a unified view of external diplomacy. It is firstly a commonality of view on freedom and prosperity for their citizens, plus a common set of play rules in the interior market for their industries. It is a concept that attracts new members, not a treaty that coerces members to stay. In fact, they have to push back the application of Turkey. And if Switzerland does not want to join, it does not make the Swiss feel like surrounded by EU enemies.
ASEAN is not there yet but could take the EU as a model of co-governance.
For China, I am afraid that you will not be welcome into such a “club”. The same applies to the US. The reason is simple: because of your size you have both a tendency to dominate. Worst, you seem to take pleasure in playing the members of the club against each other. The recent history does not point to the contrary. What the EU and ASEAN want, is that they can be in good terms with the US without angrying China, or Russia. And vice-versa.
As for the utopia of the earth without borders, with homo-sapien as a single “nationality”, I am for it. But that is for my grand-grand-grand children to build. They would not have to blog in a single language, because Google will automatically translate for them.
delta3
what sort of thinking is this?
John Chan
anarchy or (peace and prosperty)
Cam
In Asia, we might see two blocks: One is China, NKorea and Pakistan. The other is ASIAN, SKorea, Japan, India. You know why these two are formed for.