Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "The Eurasian Union: A Threat to the New World Order"

At first glance, Vladimir Putin's articled entitled "A New Integration Project For Eurasia: The Future in the Making" appears to be a poorly laid out program for the unchallenged presidential frontrunner, but under closer scrutiny the project reveals a bigger picture. The opinion piece momentarily ignited wide-scale controversy in and outside of Russia and highlighted the ongoing clash of positions on global development.

Without going into detail on the different interpretations, it is safe to say that the reaction of the Western media to the integration project unveiled by the Russian prime-minister was uniformly negative.

But why does the West perceive Putin's recent Eurasian integration proposal as a threat? Why are we seeing Cold War-style headlines crop up in Western media? The reality of the matter is that - if implemented - the plan would pose a geopolitical challenge to the new world order under the dominance of NATO, the IMF, the EU and the US. Russia's increasing assertiveness suggests that it is ready to start building an inclusive alliance based on principles which provide a viable alternative to Atlantisism and neoliberalism.

In 2011 we are observing the most wide-scale geopolitical shifts since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, with all major countries and international bodies involved in the process. In fact, the use of military force has become a legitimate instrument for conflict resolution in international politics. This is illustrated by the avalanche of criticism Moscow received after vetoing the UN Security Council resolution, which would have authorized a replay of the Libyan scenario in Syria. As a result, US permanent envoy to the UN S. Rice slammed Russia and China over the veto, while French foreign minister Alain Juppé declared that "it is a sad day for the Syrian people. It is a sad day for the Security Council".

Moscow's Western "partners" are outraged whenever Russia, in concert with China, puts obstacles in the way of the new world order. Syria, albeit a regionally important country, only fleetingly tops the agenda, but Putin's ambitious plan to form "a Eurasian Union" is a step too far from the Western perspective. Moscow openly challenges the West's global dominance by "suggesting a model of a powerful supranational union that can become one of the poles of today's world while being an efficient connecting link between Europe and the dynamic Asia-Pacific Region". No doubt Putin's message that the Eurasian Union could become a global player on the word stage, by pooling together its natural resources, capital and strong human potential, is unnerving and alarming for Western leaders.

Neither the collapse of the USSR and the bipolar world nor the subsequent proliferation of pro-Western "democracies" marked a final point in the struggle over global primacy. What followed was an era of military interventions against sovereign states, marked by information warfare and the use of soft power by the West to topple defiant regimes. In this game, Eurasia remains the main prize in line with John Mackinder's geopolitical imperative by which "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island controls the world".

In the late XX century the US became the first-ever non-Eurasian country to combine the roles of the world's top power and the final arbiter in Eurasian affairs. Within the framework of the new world order, the US and the West as a whole see Eurasia as a zone of key importance to their economic development and growing political might. Global dominance is an openly stated and constantly pursued goal of the Euro-Atlantic community and its military and financial institutions - NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank - along with the Western media and countless NGOs. Over the past couple of decades, unimpeded Western hegemony in Europe, Central Asia, and, to an extent, in the Middle East and even Russia was believed to be unquestionable and inevitable. As of late, however, the world appears to be in a state of flux. Western, Chinese and Russian observers alike are predicting the imminent failure of the neoliberal globalization model and the time has come for the political elites to adjust to this new reality.

Putin's new integration project holds a major promise for Russia and its allies while presenting Russia's foes with a serious problem. It has the potential to shield several nations from Western pressure and maintain real international security in the region. Neither Russia nor any other post-Soviet republic can survive in today's world single-handedly. As Eurasia's key geopolitical player in terms of economic, political and military power, Russia can and should stake a bid for an alternative global architecture.

The West's allergic reaction to Putin's plan may be understandable, but the Eurasian integration project grew out of a common post-Soviet geopolitical and cultural space and is consistent with current global trends defined by the emergence of regional powers. Surviving, preserving the economic and material foundations of national existence, keeping traditions alive, and building a secure future generations are all objectives which Eurasian nations can only accomplish if they stay aligned with Russia. Otherwise, they run the risk of isolation, sanctions, and military interventions in the near future.

Elena Ponomareva is a professor of Comparitive Politics at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations. She is also a columnist for the Strategic Culture Foundation.

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

October 19, 2011

Liliana

I like this comment! What's this?

I think it is overly exaggerated - I mean the title. It does not explain many things, especially what does this Eurasian Union consist of, how it is different from CIS, and what are the means of achieving the end

October 19, 2011

Monika Noniewicz, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies , Bronze Contributor (11)

I like this comment! What's this?

I’d agree that the article gravitates towards exaggeration and lacks in substantive analysis. The author does not seem to make an effort to elucidate how the proposed Eurasian Union would contribute to increasing security and prosperity in the region. This objective is better achieved in some commentaries in the Western press that the author is so quick to dismiss as biased. For instance, an analysis in the Financial Times points out to the fact that the customs union between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan – what is to be the backbone of the conceived Eurasian Union – gave Kazakhstan access to a market ten times its own but at the same flooded the local market with cheaper goods, which may negatively affect the development of the manufacturing sector. That said it is also true that the coverage in Western media often evoked Soviet Union analogies. It is hardly surprising though as any journalist who is observant of the realities in Mr. Putin’s Russia and his hugely authoritative streak in both domestic politics and on the international arena is somewhat justified in making assumptions about the sincerity of Putin’s claim to the extent that the rationale behind the new Eurasian Union is spreading prosperity and security rather than being an extension of Russia’s economic and political interests. Those concerns have every right to be voiced and a fair amount of substantial evidence to back them up. The author however, seems to go a little to far when she refers to the transatlantic community as “Russia’s foes.” Similarly, although it may be ultimately so in the authors opinion, it is hardly the ‘openly stated’ objective of NATO, IMF and the World Bank to impose and pursue ‘global domination.’ It is statements like these that truly smack of Cold War era rhetoric.

October 20, 2011

Regina Bakhteeva, University of Bologna, Silver Contributor (52)

I like this comment! What's this?

For the author’s argument that the West did not show much enthusiasm for the Eurasian Union because this project would challenge its hegemony to be valid, it needs more substantiation. At present the author seems to try to pass the desirable for reality. Somehow, the article ignores the fact that it is not only the Western media that was skeptical of the Eurasian Union. A number of authoritative Russian experts (e.g. Sergey Aleksashenko, Nikolay Petrov, Evgeniy Yasin) voiced their concerns regarding the project as well.

As the things stand now, it is Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan that are to form this Union. It has been announced today that Kyrgyzstan is likely to join, however, given Kyrgyzstan’s membership in the WTO, its participation in the Eurasian Union looks problematic. It is worth remembering that yet back in the 90s Russia and Belarus established a Union State, however, it has largely remained on paper with Lukashenko undermining Russia’s attempts at making it more operational. Belarus in the Eurasian Union is the same Belarus that is in the Union State with Russia. Why would Russia think that this time an integration project will be more successful? Certainly, Russia can entice Belarus with granting low prices on hydrocarbons to it but then this policy is far from sustainable, rendering the entire project rather precarious.

Having said that, I would not discard the title of the article as overly exaggerated. If all those with a propensity to stay in power for decades (Nazarbayev has been the President of Kazakhstan since its independence in 1991, Lukashenko has been the President of Belarus since 1994, Putin became Russia’s President for the first time in 2000) start to forge Unions, the new world order (whatever that might mean) might find itself threatened.

October 20, 2011

Paul Biaggi

I like this comment! What's this?

Unfortunately, the author is correct. The comments above merely confirm that we don’t have the courage to acknowledge that years of arrogant and one-sided policies brought us to the brink of disaster. That’s truly unfortunate. We lost the ability to see things the way they are. How many decades of illegal wars do we need to prove that global dominance is the goal of “the Euro-Atlantic community and its military and financial institutions?”
The rest of the world doesn’t trust us any longer. Can we blame them?

October 20, 2011

Yan Matusevich, Bard College, Silver Contributor (26)

I like this comment! What's this?

Putting the Cold War rhetoric and anti-Western bent of the article aside; I believe that the Eurasian Union is more hot air than a real policy proposal. In theory, a functioning Eurasian Union along the lines of the EU is a good idea that could potentially bring security and stability to the region. In fact, Putin explicitly mentioned the history of the creation of the EU from the European Coal and Steel Community and used it as a example of an economic union which then developed into a political one.

Of course, Russian analysts and politicians are quick to jump to conclusions by making the simple argument that if Europe can unite, why shouldn't the post-Soviet region do the same?

In reality, however, if the Eurasian Union takes off the ground it will be nothing like the European Union.

First of all, virtually all of the leaders in the proposed Eurasia Project are authoritarian leaders. Despite Russia's influence in the region, no authoritarian President is willing to give up any sovereignty to a supranational organisation. As Regina mentioned, this is the exact reason why Lukashenko has halted any progress on the Belarus-Russia union.

Second, how can Russia call for a common labor market when it has such a poor track record of human rights abuses against Central Asian migrants? At the moment, Russia has the second largest immigrant population in world comprised of migrant workers from former Soviet republics. In the face of growing nationalism and xenophobia, these migrant workers live under the constant threat of violence and abuse from police and nationalist gangs. So far Russia has done virtually nothing to assure the security and safety of migrant workers. Moreover, Russian immigration regulation is structured in such a bureaucratic way as to keep migrant workers permanently illegal.

Creating a working Eurasian Union would require a restructuring of the current Russian system, something that is not likely to happen under President Putin.

October 23, 2011

Elena Georgievna Ponomareva, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University), (10)

I like this comment! What's this?

First of all I wish to thank those who sent their comments. I would like to answer them.
What kind of “more substantiation” does need the argument that the Eurasian Union would challenge the hegemony of the West, namely of the USA? If it is not so, why any attempt of Russia to reintegrate some ex-Soviet republics leads to accusation of Russia of “imperialism”, of “restoration of the USSR” etc.? The Eurasian Union, if it comes into existence, of course will be a partial reintegration of the Russian Empire or of the Soviet Union as a geopolitical entity, as a strong or even as a great power. And of course the USA would do everything in their power to stop it: in 1995 president Clinton, while addressing the Joint chiefs of staff said that the US would let Russia be, but it wouldn’t let it be a great power. The reintegration of a part of the USSR (Greater Russia) is a conditio sine qua non of Russia’s becoming a great power again. Such a transformation will make the world much safer, there will be much less space in it for gangster-type and gangster-style actions of the US and NATO in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Had the Soviet Union existed, that type of international gangsterism would have been either impossible or defeated like the US in Vietnam.
Since the XIX century the West (Great Britain and later the US) tried to eliminate Russia as a giant Eurasian competitor to the Anglo-Saxons – nothing personal, just business, both geoeconomic and geopolitical. It is enough to read Mackinder, Brzezinski or M. Thatcher’s talk in the Institute of Oil (Houston, Texas, 1991) to see this clearly.
Now about the “Cold war rhetoric” and “antiwesternism”. And what about Cold war rhetoric and antirussianism in the West? Some American politicians more or less openly say that the unification of Eurasia, the new rise of Russia poses a threat to the US-dominated world order, to “America’s century” – the XXI. Some people in the West have a “nice” habit: occupying an antirussian position in theory and practice and using in fact a Cold war approach to Russia after the formal end of the Cold war, the moment the Russians try to resist such an approach or at least to object it, they accuse Russians of “Cold war rhetoric”, “antiwestern sentiments”, “imperialism” or even “nationalism”, they are “surprised” that the Russians do not trust the West.
Why should we? We became much clever since perestroika and Gorbachev’s time. For example, western leaders promised Gorbachev and later Yeltzin that the West would never integrate ex-socialist countries, let alone the ex-Soviet republics into NATO. And what? They have cheated the Russians. Now in the memoirs of the western diplomats we read that they were determined to cheat from the very start. Should we trust the West and its mouthpieces in Russia who are acting more in the Western than in the Russian interests? It is no coincidence that such experts (R. Bakhteeva mentions them) say exactly the same things as the western experts do, they are a Russian segment of Western scholarship or, rather, propaganda.
Neither can I agree with the thesis that the authoritarian character of ex-Soviet leaders would not let them to become parts of a supranational organization. If such an organization guarantees them their property and the place in the authoritarian hierarchy and hence security, they – especially in the vortex of the looming global crisis – would take place in such a construction.
If the Eurasian Union becomes a reality, it of course will not be like the European Union – it should not be: 1) Eurasia has its own traditions; 2) European Union does not seem to be a viable structure.
As for lack of guarantees for migrant work force in Russia, I have a question: why are there so many riots of migrants in Europe? Because of good conditions? Do they protest against the excess of guarantees?
What I do agree with is that a working Eurasian Union will require changes in the current Russian system – and first of all change of its place in the international division of labor. That is why the West and especially the USA and its “fifth column” in Russia will do everything to prevent the rise of such an “exaggeration”.

October 24, 2011

John Taylor, Recent Graduate from Kings College London in War Studies, Bronze Contributor (16)

I like this comment! What's this?

I think this is an interesting article in that it offers a view of the West’s relationship with Russia from a Russian perspective. There are, I believe, a number of reasons for continued hostility in the West towards Russia. Firstly despite the fall of Communism, Russia, is not by western standards a democracy, but nevertheless still represents a major potential military threat. Moreover, geo-political rivalries between Russia and the US persist notwithstanding NATO/Russian cooperation in Afghanistan. In the Middle East, both powers continue to compete for influence and control, while in Europe, Russia and the US still disagree over the proposed deployment of the Missile defense shield system. Western mistrust has been heightened by the unpredictable and arbitary way in which Russia has sometimes acted in its dealings with western countries. Thus, there is a general tendancy in the West to view anything which might strengthen Russia’s position such as the proposed creation of an EuroAsian economic zone with suspicision.

In my opinion, Russia is still weak both in terms of its physical infrastructure and its ability to function as a state. Moreover, unlike North America or say Britain, that are surrounded by friendly countries, Russia borders China, the Islamic world and Middle East and still has unresolved territorial disputes with a number of its neighbours. I believe that part of the reason Russia acts in an aggressive way is in order to hide its own weakness, but western criticism of Russia rarely takes this into account.

October 24, 2011

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (503)

I like this comment! What's this?

This article is interesting as that is presents a point of view rather uncommon in western media. However, it unfortunately resembles the one of the 'old US' guys or hawks on the other side of the Atlantic which is still trapped in cold war strategic thinking. Or, more precisely, in the old games of colonial and 'zones of influence' games and the world wars. If these views would be dominant, the resulting mix could be quite dangerous. From this point of view, I'd share much of the earlier criticism in the west, and I'm afraid this union has not been born out of original interest in, of sympathies for Russia's eastern neighbours, but out of an attempt to weaken the perceived western domination of the world and to revive at least kind of a shadow of the Soviet Union's former glory.

However, I see the whole issue pretty relaxed and am no way afraid or against the Eurasian Union. In contrast, if the Russians like it, I'd say "go for it"! If it leads to more regional cooperation, security, and stability, it can only be welcomed. Speaking about zones of influence and world security for example, I'd not hesitate to entrust Afghanistan to the Eurasian Union if they think they can manage the country better than NATO. At least it should be even more in the interest of the Eurasians than westerners that the situation is stabilized there - but I have doubts whether the Eurasians would be willing or able to succeed there.

I may be wrong, but what I know about Russia I do not think it will be happy for all too long in the Eurasian Union. Firstly because culturally Russia is largely European, or at least wants to be European. It is far too large and includes far to many non-European lands to be any time a member of the EU, but I would say, if there wasn't the shadow of the lost Soviet empire which many Russians could not really accept yet, the borders to Europe would be much smaller than the ones to the Asian partners.

In addition, given the actual demography and general development, Russia will soon be the junior partner in the Eurasian Union. Therefore I think it will be Russia which will delay the further integration of this union. It has been designed by a small elite trying to play stronger in world policits because of a feeling of inferiority against the US, but I don't think it has any connection to the people, their culture, or their historic experience. This is an important difference to the EU, which has been born not only out of a common cultural identity felt by most citizens, but also out of the catastrophes of the world wars. Therefore I think this Eurasian project will be as short-lived as the current world power constellation, but I will be happy to be proven wrong.

It is a petty that Russia perceives the west so negatively as enemies. The west should have treated Russia better and with less distrust after the collapse of the Soviet Union - but the Russian elites should also do more to develop their country and better tackle the strong social differences. If people would live better in Russia, the loss of the empire would be much easier digested, and perhaps even the feel of needing something powerful to be respected would diminish.

October 25, 2011

Paul Biaggi

I like this comment! What's this?

Don’t be discouraged, our Russian friends. It took us a long time to build a European Union (and it’s still not working the way we’ve hoped). Over time, people of Eurasia will recognize the need to stick together and the Union will succeed, in one form or another. There are deep centuries old cultural links between the people in the region. Good luck!

October 25, 2011

Jordan

I like this comment! What's this?

I totally agree with the author’s view of the West and western actions internationally in the post cold war era. The Euro-Asian Union would be a great platform for regional economic stimulus and for the regional stability. In the post cold war era the Western powers have done nothing in the interest of Russia.

The expansion of NATO, NATO missile shield in Eastern Europe, Blocking of Russia's membership to WTO, etc are all examples of Western anti-Russian development. Sure, the west gave money to Russia after the collapse of USSR, but the western money was to Oligarch's controlled Russia in order for Russia not to interfere in western actions.

Some commentators are pointing to Russian so-called autocratic system and lack of democratic values in Russia. It is easy to point fingers at your neighbours and lecture and talk about disorder in their house. How about the economic and freedom turmoil in the western countries.

The political system in the US is two party system which cannot be called democratic. US voters have two choices, bad and worst. The two party’s policies are 99.9% the same and the parties are controlled by the same interests groups. No matter which party wins the interest groups win. Democratic Party says it fights for the poor and the Republican Party says it fights for the hardworking (in Republican message hardworking are businesses). However, Democratic & Republican differences are only evident during the election speeches. In reality once elected the presidents and policymakers work for the same business interest groups.

The policy makers and presidents can’t take money from businesses while in office. However, once out of office the businesses reward the presidents and policymakers with invitations to lucrative speeches worth $2,000 per seat for the next 10-20 years. No president or policy maker would want to be torn to special interest groups and stop such a big cash-cow. Clinton made $100 million while out of office. It was Bill Clinton that striped financial regulatory laws in the interest of unregulated free for all market economy. Its seems that the same special interest groups have controlled the US for the past 50 years and which makes the US political system autocratic.

Last 3-4 years exposed the worst criminal and greed based system in the Western countries. The losses of the gambling rich and banks were paid-back by the taxpayers, and the taxpayers in turn were left out in the cold to cover the debt of the rich. How is that moral or legal? How is it moral or legal to privatize profits and to socialize losses?

How is it moral or legal for the alliance of the willing to kill 500,000 civilians in Iraq and call those civilians collateral damage? Should the occupying power by the Geneva Convention guarantee Iraqis safety? If Russia puts forward UN resolution for intervention in Bahrain to protect Bahrain's civilians, would the West support it? Doubt it.

The Occupy Wall Street protestors have received barely any media coverage in the US. Yet Michael Jackson trial is receiving 24 hour day coverage? People in US are losing their jobs, houses, can’t school their children, losing their pensions. Yet the media is saying that the protesters don’t have clear message. How clearer can the message be? The policy of the US government is to turn domestic public's problems at home (US) to Michael Jackson and create diversions such as Libya from the domestic problems.

The West is the real controlled autocratic system that is controlled by the same special interest groups for years and the corporate in that goal is the Media which controls message. These interest groups, presidents and policymakers will sent ordinary American citizens into a war for the interest of the bought politicians.

November 16, 2011

ArthurZielinski

I like this comment! What's this?

Miss Ponomareva's article is very interesting, but for all the wrong reasons. It will be a sad day if all Russians end up thinking like this. Just two points - apart from Chechen terrorists, and perhaps Georgia, Russia has no "foes". Sure, there are peoples and governments who are sceptical, states and companies which are competitors for markets and resources, but people in the "West", wherever that is, wish Russia and its people well. If you want a Eurasian Union, go for it, and may it prosper, but make sure you know exactly what you want and why you want it. Paranoia is not a good place from which to start a new enterprise.

As for the "West", I have no idea what she means by that - is it in Brazil? South Africa? Malta? Holland? Media/TV companies? The global banking system? California? Miss Ponomareva has constructed a straw man which she then successfully demolishes, at the same time showing a lack of awareness of what she is struggling with, and perhaps most Russian policy makers - the fact that the world outside of Russia, even the parts that make any sense is seen as confusing, fluid, frustrating, treacherous, and ultimately threatening. It's too easy to wrap this up in a parcel and call it the "West". Russians just don't seem to get that their enemies are are more projections of their fears than reality, and that the real challenge is the modern world itself, and how to survive in it.

All societies are concerned about their futures, and try to anticipate, however well they can, how to proceed. Russians too must do this, but 19th Century thinking won't get them very far.

November 22, 2011

Jordan

I like this comment! What's this?

Comentator above is the example of extreme ignorance and arrogance. Instead of commenting in constructive manner of dialog, He is hanging his confusion on the term "West" used by the Author. There are many people in the "West" just like him who intentionally dont listen to the views of others, but rather claim ignorance and that is why Miss Ponomareva's arguments have validity.

November 23, 2011

Arthur Zielinski

I like this comment! What's this?

I regret if I have caused any offence, and I will develop my comments further. The main thrust of my comment was that the "West" as presented in Miss Ponomareva's article does not exist. It is as much China as the US, as much Venezuela as Germany, as much Australia as Vietnam, and, indeed, as much Russia as Great Britain. The concept disappeared with the Berlin wall, and is now so ambiguous that it has lost most of its validity, but in my travels in East Central and Eastern Europe I am still asked, ad nauseam, "what does the West think about this?" or "what do people in the West think about that?"

To create a new polity based on an illusion, an antithesis to the "West", is an absurdity. The "New World Order" as described by Miss Ponomareva is so fractured, and has created so much antipathy within societies who are part of it that it has already seen its day. There is indeed a New World Order in the making, but the reality is that it is not under any sociey's, or group of countries' control - it is still being formed, its outlines are still uncertain, and its final structure is as yet unresolved.

Friends of Russia, in which category I include myself, watch events in Russian society with great interest, but are regularly disappointed with the "one step forward, two steps back" policies which the governing elites seem to use in attempting to modernise Russia. True, there are huge structural problems, in governance, limiting corruption, lack of an assertive "mittelstand", and lack of experience with a functioning democracy and civil society, but the fact remains that much time has been wasted.

A Eurasian Union may in fact be what Russia needs, but geographical expansion is no substitute for internal change and development. I wish my Russian friends well with their new enterprise.

April 30, 2012

N. M.

I like this comment! What's this?

I enjoyed reading this article.

Coming from the crossroads of civilization, sometimes I find the Western hubris interesting. Namely, in the majority of comments, one can easily recognize many thinking patterns that serve to protect the Western complacency. After all, only rarely does one come across a Westerner who can see through these self-serving thinking patterns, and accept facts.

And it is the facts that give a strong support to Ms. Ponomareva's article. They are:
i) Wen's words spoken during the China- Central and Eastern Europe Summit.
ii) His statements from his meeting with Merkel in Hannover.
iii) His statements from his meeting with David Cameron in London.
iv) Xi's statements from his meeting with Dmitry Rogozin.

Of course it is not expected the Western hubris will appreciate the significance of these facts. Not because this is the West at its best, but because hubris is a stubborn thing. But facts are stubborn, too.

The beauty of politics is simple. When the going gets tough... you cannot rely on hubris.

RSS

Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

October 19, 2011 | 14 comments | Print | E-Mail Your Opinion

The Eurasian Union: A Threat to the New World Order

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Poll

Should NATO intervene in Syria?