EURussiaCentreEU-Russia Centre

Доклад об экспертной дискуссии “Восточное Партнерство: риск появления новых разделительных линий в Европе?”, 15 октября 2009

On 15th October Olena Prystayko, research fellow of the EU-Russia Centre and Arkady Moshes, Programme Director of the Research programme on Russia in region and global context at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, took part in an expert discussion organised by the Heinrich Boell Foundation in Warsaw, “Eastern Partnership and Russia: a Risk of a New Division Line in Europe?”. The discussion was attended by 35 Polish experts, representing official and research institutions, media and universities.

Opening the discussion, Mr. Moshes stressed that fragmentation of the post-Soviet space and Eastern Partnership (EaP) region had increased recently. Both Russia and the EU had a restricted set of instruments at their disposal to control this process. They also had limited influence in the region. Russia had a generally negative attitude towards the Eastern Partnership of the EU for two reasons: Instrumental – Russia was trapped in a “double refusal gap”. Having rejected the European Neighbourhood Policy, Russia could no longer participate in the EaP. The second reason was systemic – Russia did not like policies which it had not lead or participated in. Additionally, EU and Russia interests did not coincide in this region. The main question was over the readiness of the EU and Russia to face conflict in the region. Both players had the resources to participate in conflict, but were not ready to use them. The EU should raise its presence in the region through the implementation of a number of projects; an increased level of EU presence would mean a reduced potential for conflict with Russia.

Ms. Prystayko gave an overview of the EaP region in terms of democratic development. In “Nations in Transit 2009” (published by Freedom House), only two countries,– Georgia and Ukraine, were classified as having “transitional governance or hybrid regime”. Armenia and Moldova were considered as “semi-consolidated authoritarian regimes”, while Azerbaijan and Belarus were already “consolidated authoritarian regimes”. Russia also had been put into the category of consolidated authoritarian regimes. Different political systems determined the attitudes that the partners have towards EU: EaP policy. Ways to engage Russia in the implementation of the EaP and general cooperation with the EU in the regions were restricted. There was little hope that Russia would be cooperative in the region under the current political system. The EU, nevertheless, should continue its current policy and dialogue with Russia. EU policy should be twofold: continuing efforts in promoting democracy in the region, and strengthening cooperation with Russia.

The discussion which followed focused on seeking options of engaging Russia in the implementation of the Eastern Partnership, different dimensions of the policy and its implementation, such as energy, security, as well as financial mechanisms. Summing up the discussion, moderator Maria Przelomiec, a journalist from TVP Info, said that the topics were important and it made sense to continue discussions in the future.