IPN analysis: By its latest actions against Moldova, and Ukraine and other states of the Eastern Partnership, Russia not only makes the internal situation in these countries and the bilateral relations tense. The given actions can seriously affect the own geopolitical interests of Russia in the region as they force a part of these countries to leave the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) so as to find shelter at other international organizations. If this happens, Russia will also find itself self-pushed …out of Europe…
---
Incontestably, the Russian Federation was, is and will be a great power at regional and world levels. It secures such a role by its own political and economic weight and because it manages to maintain a large number of states within its sphere of influence. The most significant form of its influence is within the CIS, which includes most of the ex-Soviet republics and where Russia plays a central part in all the fields. The situation in the CIS is a barometer by which one can assess Russia’s understanding of influencing things in the region and, why not, in the world.
CIS is more dead than alive
Initially, the CIS includes 10 of the 14 former republics, besides Russia. Georgia joined afterward, in 1993, in controversial circumstances, as a result of a civil war that involved the Russian troops. But in 2008, when the Russian troops intervened again to support two separatist regimes in this country, the Georgian parliament voted unanimously in favor of the withdrawal from the CIS. Even if Georgia lost a part of its territory as a result of this war, it benefited from no support from the CIS, of which it was a fully-fledged member. Today, Russia exerts economic and political influence on Moldova and Ukraine, not for the first time and in a tough way, as always. The CIS does not offer them support or guarantees as regards the observance of the own rights and interests in the dispute with the organization’s leader.
During its existence of over two decades, the CIS played the role of an amorphous organization that is more dead than alive and that was unable to solve at least one more or less important problem faced by its members, besides Russia. Moreover, all the military conflicts existing on the territory of the CIS were, intentionally or not, kept frozen as long as Russia needed them as instruments in its relations with the member states. I already said how it acted in the case of the separatist regimes in Georgia. It is known that Russia offers support to the separatist Transnistrian regime in the case of Moldova. Supposedly, namely the conflict in the Mountainous Karabakh was used by Russia to make Armenia abandon its intention to sign the documents that would have brought it closer to the EU at the Vilnius Summit. Anyway, Russia itself recognizes the inefficiency of the CIS and wants to create another interregional organization together with the same states – the Eurasian Union.
Moldova, Russia and the CIS – case study
A meeting of the CIS Economic Council was held in Moscow last week. The agenda included a separate issue - Moldova’s commercial policy. The Moldovan authorities counted on this format of discussions. But we cannot expect the big problems faced by Moldova in its commercial relations with one of the partners from the CIS to be solved. On those days, the Russian President Vladimir Putin made fully undiplomatic statements not only about the Moldovan wines and authorities, but also about Moldova’s European integration course. Can anyone imagine that the head of Russia’s consumer rights watchdog Gennady Onishchenko, who imposed the embargo on the imports of Moldovan wine products, will take into account the pro-Moldovan decision that the CIS Economic Council make take, by a miracle, and not the decision of Vladimir Putin? Or, can anyone imagine that the same Onishchenko stated his own viewpoint in the same undiplomatic manner before knowing the stance of Putin or receiving instructions in this respect? That’s why, despite the optimistic impressions left by the meeting held by Moldovan Minister of Agriculture Vasile Bumacov and Gennady Onishchenko in Moscow, which coincided with Vladimir Putin’s statements, we cannot hope that the embargo will be lifted in the near future, at least not before the Vilnius Summit. The experience of the embargo of 2006 confirms this. The CIS was unable to intervene in Moldova’s favor.
But it’s not excluded that wines of a poor quality made in Moldova or other countries are sold on the Russian market. But all the countries look at this thing through the angle of the commercial relations between the exporting and importing companies. In this case, only Russia hampers the exporting countries from following their development course, as in the case of Moldova. Despite the fact that namely Russia, unlike other importing countries, compiles and approves lists of companies that are allowed to export products to it, being greatly responsible for the composition of these lists, more than half of the wine businesses in Moldova belong to Russian owners. Did they purchase these factories for Moldova to make wine of a poor quality? Or the Russian owners of wine factories in Moldova are all unable to make good and safe wine? Maybe those who are against the results of the investment contest by which the Chisinau International Airport was conceded to a Russian company are right? They consider that given that Moldova is very dependent on Russia as regards imports, exports and its strategic goods it is dangerous to offer Russia control over Moldova’s airspace. This is an absurdity, but not greater than the absurdity that all the Moldovan wine is bad and only Russia can drink it and the association documents signed with the EU will lead to the situation when all the Moldovan wines will be poured out into a ditch, as the Russian leader stated.
What do the ‘normal’ countries that find themselves in such situations, even repeatedly, do? They try to solve the problems by bilateral negotiations and/or appeal to arbitrators, and/or take care not to experience such situations in the future. As a ‘normal’ and small country, Moldova behaved calmly when the embargo on its wine was announced and when signals appeared that the Moldovan fruit and labor force may also be banned. It announced its readiness to contribute to solving the real problems. It also appealed to the CIS as to an arbitrator. But the effect is known. Thus, Moldova, and Ukraine, which is in a similar situation, will have to leave an organization that does not offer protection and to find another one, with other rules and with guarantees for the own interests, in the person of the EU. It may happen that out of Agatha Christie’s ‘ten little Negroes’ there will remain fewer.
Scenarios and effects
What does Russia count on in its behavior? It probably counts on causing dissatisfaction inside the countries that displeased it by their decision to come closer to the EU, not to the Eurasian Union. Such a scenario may succeed and Russia will obtain new members for its union. But Russia may remain without allies, first in the CIS and then in the so-called ‘post-Soviet’ Europe. In the case of the second scenario, of the ex-Soviet European states, Russia will remain in the CIS only with Belarus. The two Caucasian states - Armenia and Azerbaijan – with the serious conflict they face between them, are more of a hindrance in the CIS than a strong point. Thus, Russia remains surrounded and influenced by the Middle Asia countries, which are former Soviet republics. The Eurasian Union may have the same configuration, if it appears. In such a situation, Russia will be unable to count on its Transnistrian ‘bridge head’ in its interests in the region and in the new geopolitical conjuncture.
Thus, if Moldova and especially Ukraine withdraw from the CIS, Russia will have to orient itself to the Asian area, which is mainly Muslim. Moreover, Russia will separate itself from the Slavic world and from the Orthodox world because the change of the political status of one territory usually brings about changes in its spiritual organization. Russia itself gave many relevant examples. For example, in 1812, when it annexed a part of the historical Moldova, it didn’t accept the Moldovan church to remain united, based in Iasi. It founded its own bishopric and then its own Metropolitan Church, based in Moscow. By the way, the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia Kirill came recently to Moldova to take part in the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the foundation of that bishopric, which in fact marked a schism in the Moldovan church. Furthermore, given the permanent political tensions in the Russian-Ukrainian relations, our neighbors can remember than the Russian orthodoxy was established in Kiev, not in Moscow…
In fact, the recent actions of the Russian authorities affected also other real or possible allies of the Russian Patriarchate in Chisinau. Patriarch Kirill was met in Moldova with the highest honors, by the most influential persons in the state: the President, the Prime Minister and the leader of the most influential parliamentary party of the government coalition of Moldova. Surely they acted as the leaders of any other ‘normal’ state in such cases. They certainly pursued certain political goals, but risked their political image, given the imminent internal political rivalries. The political opponents in Moldova didn’t miss the occasion to hit them, including during the visit and including by diminishing the importance of the Russian Patriarch’s visit. In less than two days, the Russian authorities imposed an embargo and the hopes of the Moldovan politicians who are loyal to the Russian Patriarchate faded away. This happens at a time when there are enough animosities between the Moldovan Metropolitan Church and the Bessarabia Metropolitan Church, subordinated to the Orthodox Patriarchate of Bucharest.
Valeriu Vasilcă, IPN
