“Ukrainian events put an end to integration as Putin understands it”

Tomorrow, two extremely important symptomatic events are going to take place in the post-Soviet countries. In Kyiv, MPs are going to vote on Ukraine’s withdrawal from the CIS. “Drafts of these resolutions have already been submitted to the Verkhovna Rada,” acting foreign minister Andrii Deshchytsia told journalists yesterday.

A few hours earlier on the same day, a session of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council will take place in Astana, where heads of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia will sign an agreement on the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). Formally, it is going to be about the transformation of the Customs Union into a new form, which will structurally resemble the European Union. Last year, Moscow tried to pressurize Ukraine into joining the CU. And only the Euromaidan stopped Ukrainian government, which refused to sign the Association Agreement in return for a multibillion Russian credit and discount for gas. The Kremlin press service’s statement on this occasion informs that formation of the largest common market on the CIS territory (170 million people) will be completed in this way.

The Day addressed Russian, Kazakh, and Belarusian experts with a request to tell about these countries’ expectations of the creation of this union.

“THE OFFERED PROJECT, WHICH IS BASED ON PERSONAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE THREE AUTHORITARIAN LEADERS, IS NONDURABLE”

Nikolai PETROV, independent analyst, Moscow:

“I think that Ukrainian events put an end to integration as it was initially seen by Putin, as something that starts with economy and evolves into politics later. It is an important project for Putin indeed, but the thing is that having annexed Crimea, he eliminated the possibility of a softer integration in favor of a more harsh joining and in Russia’s favor as a nation state. Therefore I think that buying Belarus’ support, and this has been discussed at length before, by giving it additional benefits related to Russian oil and so on, ensuring the signing, and receiving a certain image-affecting result out of this is possible. But counting on the fact that it is not merely an end of the integration, but the first stage, like it has been with the European Union once, is absolutely unrealistic.

“The project made sense when the future expansion of this integration project was expected, including Ukraine’s joining. When Russia has no money, Belarus will not need any sort of integration. Neither expansion, nor intensification of this integration is possible now. From this point of view, such an important initial step, the agreement signing, which will take place on May 29, turns into a media event, promoting campaign, demonstration of the fact that Russia is not alone, but it has a whole group of countries ready to do something with it, and nothing more.

“Economic integration as such is certainly promising. The offered project, which is based on the personal agreements between the three authoritarian leaders, is nondurable. When Nazarbayev retires, it is unlikely that someone from the younger Kazakh elite will support this project. Benefits for Kazakhstan are more doubtful, than for Belarus. The project will also live in Belarus as long as Lukashenka considers it to be economically profitable to take money and in return demonstrate participation in some integration projects, but not more than that.

“What happens tomorrow is not going to be something that was initially planned, and it seems to me that the life of this project is very limited. Such a project would have a right to exist if it moved towards liberal economy, since it promotes integration. But in countries like Russia and Belarus, where state economy is dominating, it can be considered that some kind of cooperation is beneficial and sensible, but at the end everything comes down to the political will of an authoritarian leader, and it is not a very reliable basis for such an integration project.”

“PARTICIPATION IN THE EEU IS ECONOMICALLY PROFITABLE FOR BELARUS”

Leonid ZAIKO, director of the Strategy Analytical Center, Minsk:

“Belarus is an open economy and it needs a stable community. It can be either the EU, or Russia. The choice is simple. Belarusian economic elites, the directors, have chosen Russia. Judging by the sociological polls, the population does not expect neither financial, nor material improvement nowadays, just as it did not in the 1990s. But the answer was rather peculiar: it is simply better with Russia.

“As for advantages. Firstly, cheap oil, which sometimes makes up 40, or sometimes even 48 percent of our export. We process Russian oil and sell two billion dollars worth of it to Ukraine. Belarus receives a profit of 400 dollars from each ton of oil. Belarus has two oil refineries, which makes the process viable.

“Secondly, end market. In a number of branches, more than 70 percent of products made in Belarus are sold to Russia. Meat and dairy products, tractors, heavy vehicles. Technical elite prefers to keep the situation this way.

“Thirdly, the availability of an option for Belarusian students to obtain education in Russia with the same rights as Russian students have.

“Fourthly, work in Russia. About a million Belarusians work in Russia’s central provinces, especially in Moscow and Saint Petersburg.

“They joke in Belarus that Russia is our raw materials source. It is economically profitable for Belarus to participate in the CU and EEU.

“As for the cons, it is the Soviet psychological stereotype, because there was a choice: to not give a damn about everyone, the East and the West, and live like Switzerland does. It is impossible.

“While analyzing the social and economic state, the economic flows, I see no other cons, but the fear of the Kremlin. A part of the elite is afraid of it. The population views Russians as brothers so far. As to other disadvantages, I would also point out the failed expectations of the national elite.”