NEW UNION: TO BE OR NOT TO BE?

The new idea of a Eurasian Union put forward by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has triggered a heated debate both in Russia and former Soviet countries. After it became known who will run for the Russian presidency in the next election, Vladimir Putin effectively presented a new Russian super-project - the Eurasian Union. He clarified that it is not about recreating the Soviet Union but about "close integration on the basis of new values, politics, and economics". The starting point, according to the Russian prime minister, should be 1 January 2012, when the Common Economic Area (CEA) of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan is to be launched.

Putin says that the Eurasian Union is not an alternative to European integration, but a path of universal integration.

The reaction to Putin's idea in post-Soviet countries has been mixed. Georgia, for example, has dubbed the project restoration of the Russian empire, while some Central Asian countries have expressed positive views.

So what is the Eurasian Union - a new Soviet Union, the prototype of the CIS or the prospect of forming an association like the European Union from the Carpathians to Kamchatka? Is there a place for warring countries in this project? Does the Russian project envisage domination of one country?

We put these questions to two Russian experts who hold opposing views in this context.

Sergey Markov, Russian State Duma deputy:

Today, it is almost impossible for small countries to develop on their own outside economic unions. Even countries such as Germany, France and Britain cannot afford that. Only the USA, China and Japan can live independently. Therefore, there is an absolute imperative - those involved in economic unions will develop, while those who are not are doomed to economic decline.

It is very good that Russia has ceased to be distracted by small-scale projects and has introduced a major programme. This alliance will be open only to countries that are independent of US influence. The Eurasian Union is clearly opposed by the United States. Washington openly warns Ukraine against joining this mutually beneficial project. So the development of the Eurasian Union is blocked by the West. The second obstacle is the selfishness of Russian oligarchs. Russian bureaucracy, the political class headed by Vladimir Putin, is trying to implement the project, but oligarchic circles are opposed to the Union because of the fear of losing control over the economy. As the influence of the West dwindles, which will inevitably occur under the influence of the economic crisis, US pressure will reduce. Countries such as Ukraine and Azerbaijan will have the opportunity to join the integration project without fear of pressure from Washington. Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and others have no chance of becoming EU members, while the Eurasian Union could be based on the Customs Union.

I think that the second wave of accession to the Customs Union will be joined by Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Armenia. The third wave will cover Ukraine, Moldova, Uzbekistan, Turkey and Azerbaijan. It is beneficial for all these countries to join the Customs Union. For Ukraine, for instance, the removal of tariff barriers will add 1,000 dollars a year to the budget of every Ukrainian family. Not much, but it is at least something. The Eurasian Union project should not be opposed to the European Union. Moreover, it is seen as a way towards the EU. We all like the internal structure of the EU: rich countries, a high standard of living, guaranteed security, human rights. Despite the global crisis, all this has been preserved. From the very beginning we will focus on maximum integration with the EU, including the prospect of forming a common economic area - the Eurasian Union and the European Union. But before that it is necessary to create a common civil and economic area within the Eurasian Union.

This project may also be described as a Slavic-Turkic union. And unlike the EU, which is a Catholic-Protestant area, the Eurasian alliance can be seen as an Orthodox-Muslim alliance. The role of government and traditional values will be greater there.

There is no problem with the accession of warring countries to the Eurasian Union. NATO's experience shows that even such hostile countries as Turkey and Greece may be members of the same military-political bloc. As to whether the Eurasian Union will have a dominant country, it should be noted that the project envisages a union similar to the EU. The EU is dominated by Germany and France in some respects, while in others it is not. The project of the Eurasian Union will enable member-countries to feel comfortable and not have the sense that they are commanded from Moscow.

Leonid Radzikhovskiy, political analyst:

The idea of a Eurasian Union is pure PR, nothing more. Hopefully, there will be no real and very expensive effort leading nowhere made on this. There has never been a precedent of voluntary inclusion of a state into another or a country recognizing a protectorate of another over it. The European Union was created through the convergence of economically, demographically and GDP-wise comparable countries. The core of the EU is formed by old and eternal enemies, Germany and France. These are comparable countries and it is impossible to say that Germany will recognize the supremacy of France or that France will recognize the dominant role of Germany. Such a union can psychologically attract other states because it does not constitute a waiver of their sovereignty. Let's consider the idea of a Eurasian Union from this perspective. Russia's population is 10 times the population of Belarus or Kazakhstan, its GDP is 12-15 times higher, it would be ridiculous to compare the Russian army with the armies of these countries, etc. Hence, there can be no association on an equal footing. We can only say that these countries give up their sovereignty to become Russia's vassals. Who would do that and why? Even Lukashenko, whose economy has absolutely failed, has been keeping Russia on a string for 15 years and refusing to be subordinated to Moscow. Here is a simple example. For all the pressure Moscow put on Belarus to recognize the so-called independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and to denounce Saakashvili, Lukashenko said, "I will not recognize or condemn anyone."

The Eurasian Union idea put forward by the Russian prime minister is both pre-election and post-election PR. After all, Putin hopes to stay in power for the next 12 years. So he has to offer people at least something, he has to explain to people why he has decided to return. And the Eurasian Union will be such a PR program at least to begin with - to unite, recreate a large country and so on. In the minds of the Russian people there are two conflicting ideas. These are eternal sorrow for the USSR, for how great we were and how great it would be to restore all that. Idea number two is that it is not necessary to do anything to achieve that, to give up rights, spend money or waive the Russian state. They want to combine the Tsarist empire and the Soviet internationalist state. But that can't happen. It is impossible to resolve these contradictions. Attempts have been made for 15 years to create a unified, a very unified, an absolutely unified, a completely unified state with Belarus, but without much success. PR does not require real effort, PR can apply to anything.