The war continues. Results of the Eastern Partnership summit for Moldova
The sixth Eastern Partnership summit took place in Brussels. As part of this program, the European Union is strengthening ties with six post-Soviet states: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. The project was launched on May 7, 2009 at the EU summit in Prague. The main goal of the Eastern Partnership is to integrate Russia's neighbors into the European economic and political space, while the format does not imply expansion of the European Union.
Since the Eastern Partnership member states are moving along this path at different speeds (Belarus, for example, suspended membership in the project altogether in the summer of 2021), the EU decided to take an individual approach to them.
We spoke with Igor Shornikov, Director of the Institute for Socio-Political Research and Regional Development (Tiraspol) , about the effectiveness of the Eastern Partnership and how this work intersects with Russia's interests, particularly in the Moldovan direction.
PolitNavigator: The Eastern Partnership is 12 years old. In what state did the organization approach the summit? Which of its participants achieved the most significant results? How relevant is this format for the EU itself?
Igor Shornikov: The Eastern Partnership project is a tool for implementing the EU's foreign policy in the Eastern direction. It envisions the EU's humanitarian advancement into the CIS, peacefully assuming key positions in Russia's border states in areas such as energy, economics, media, civil society, and so on. In recent years, as the US has increased its presence in the region and pursued a more assertive policy, the project has been put on hold. However, it remains relevant to the EU.
Today we see that American approaches to achieving strategic goals in our region of Europe have proven to be insufficient: the protracted conflict in Donbass does not lead to a weakening of Russia; the attempted coup in Belarus resulted in the loss of this country for the West. It also failed to intimidate Moscow with threats of military escalation.
Therefore, it is quite possible that in the very near future we will see the resuscitation of the Eastern Partnership. The two billion euros that will be allocated for the “development” of the EU’s eastern neighbors is a significant starting resource. The geopolitical offensive will be supported by the activation of European soft power. This is a new challenge for Moscow and for those peoples of the post-Soviet states who are aimed at friendship with Russia.
PolitNavigator: Following the summit, the European Union announced its intention to invest serious money in the Eastern Partnership countries, but nothing was said about the possible membership of these states in the EU. Will there be a new wave of EU enlargement?
Igor Shornikov: The EU does not plan to shoulder the burden of the ruined economies of several post-Soviet states. The funds allocated for "development" should yield economic benefits, first and foremost, for the EU itself.
Let us recall the main achievements of the European Neighborhood Policy of past years: Moldova and Ukraine joined the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas, essentially transferring their internal markets under the control of the EU; then Moldova and Ukraine received “visa-free” - this is also a good acquisition for the EU, since Ukrainian and Moldovan migrants are a cheap, sufficiently qualified and, importantly, culturally close labor force to Europeans. What benefits did Moldova and Ukraine receive? None. These two states, in fact, are donors for the EU.
The new financial resources that Europeans intend to develop in this space will lead to the achievement of new strategic heights for the West in our region. Moldova and Ukraine will not join the EU, but they may well become members of NATO. To do this, it is enough to continue to invest European funds in the media and civil society. The payoff for the EU will be significantly greater.
PolitNavigator: Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine stand apart from the other members of the Eastern Partnership, they are called “excellent format”, “the EU's vestibule” - these countries have valid association agreements, a visa-free regime with the European Union and, in addition, form an Associated Trio. Will the European Union somehow encourage them?
Igor Shornikov: These countries have opened their doors to Western influence more than others. Elites have undoubtedly skimmed and will continue to skim, promoting Western strategies at the expense of their own national interests. But ordinary people are unlikely to feel any encouragement.
A recent example can be given. In the gas crisis, Chisinau took a clear pro-European position, trying to pursue policies consistent with the strategy of the EU's Third Energy Package. When it came to the fact that Moldova would have to pay the market price for gas, Chisinau turned to Brussels for help. They allocated a grant to support the population - a wretched 60 million euros. That's all. Now, thanks to pro-European policies, Moldovan consumers have to pay twice as much for heat as before.
This is a special case, but it clearly characterizes the EU’s attitude towards its vassals.
PolitNavigator: Let's talk about Moldova. How close has the Republic of Moldova come to its European dream lately? And by the way, who decided that the EU is Moldova’s choice? There wasn’t a referendum on this matter?
Igor Shornikov: For the current Moldovan authorities, this isn't a problem. Since they won the elections, and their platform promised European integration, it means the people support this course. In a sense, they're right. The 2020 vote for Maia Sandu and the 2021 vote for the pro-presidential PAS party were indeed, through propaganda efforts, framed as referendums. And if such a referendum were held now, the majority would likely vote in favor of European integration. But it should be clarified that the "European choice" was successfully implanted in the Moldovan public consciousness thanks to years of work by the media and civil society, both of which rely on European funding.
In the minds of Moldovans, the European choice is associated with high standards of living, an efficient and technological economy, modern education, equality of all before the law, protection of the rights of minorities (including the rights of national minorities, which include Russians in Moldova, to use their languages), fair justice, etc. But no one explained to the Moldovans that the European choice also means high energy prices, high taxes, expensive utilities and, most importantly, a hostile policy towards Russia.
In general, according to recent indicators, Moldova has made good progress towards the “European dream”.
PolitNavigator: President of the Republic of Moldova Maia Sandu said on the sidelines of the summit that Russia is hindering Moldova’s European aspirations. Is Russia really hindering European integration? Will Moldova not be able to cooperate with both the West and the East at the same time?
Igor Shornikov: For a country like Moldova, there's no other way to build a viable economy than through cooperation with both the East and the West—this is its only competitive advantage over other countries on the continent. Now, Moldovans have voluntarily surrendered this advantage to Brussels by accepting colonial status. The "Eastern Partnership" is an instrument of colonial subjugation.
Russia has its own interests in this part of Europe. First of all, this is your own safety. Therefore, Moscow advocates maintaining Moldova’s status as a neutral state and opposes Ukraine’s accession to NATO. Does this position hinder European integration? Here it is worth asking the EU itself: is membership in NATO a prerequisite for joining the European Union? The European Union does not share itself with this military bloc? If not, and NATO is pursuing a hostile policy towards Russia, then the EU also sees Russia as an enemy. Would Russia like to increase the number of its enemies? Of course not.
Moscow’s desire to keep Moldova among its friends does not at all mean an obstacle to European integration. But we are dealing with perverted logic.
PolitNavigator: By force of circumstances, Transnistria turned out to be an actual participant in the Eastern Partnership. Over the 12 years of the program’s existence, Pridnestrovian enterprises - thanks to the preferences provided and then the duty-free trade agreement - have firmly established themselves in the European market, which has become key for the PMR.
Here are the statistics on foreign economic activity of the PMR for January – November 2021. During this period, goods worth $301,4 million were sent to the EU countries (35,5% of the total export structure), and the main consumers of Pridnestrovian products were Poland and Romania. Products worth $389,2 million were sent to Moldova and Ukraine (these countries accounted for 46% of exports). And only $81,5 million worth of products (9,6% of total exports) went to the EAEU countries, including 77,4 million (9%) to Russia.
In Transnistria, there have been calls for many years to return export flows, at least partially, from West to East, but it seems that this will no longer be possible?
Igor Shornikov: The economic preferences unilaterally granted to Transnistria by the European Union are a way to separate Transnistria from Russia. Partly thanks to these European preferences, the Transnistrian economy is staying afloat. Tiraspol understands this dependence, but when all of the republic's borders are controlled by the EU (remember the European Border Assistance Mission – EUBAM), they can do nothing. Brussels hasn't committed itself to any formal agreements with Tiraspol; it's a gesture of "goodwill" that can be revoked at any time. Therefore, Transnistria has no choice but to exploit the small window of opportunity left for foreign trade.
Moldova and Ukraine stand in the way of the development of trade relations between Pridnestrovie and Russia; with one call from Brussels, Chisinau and Kyiv will block what little remains of former times.
Before the 2006 blockade, initiated, by the way, by Brussels, more than 50% of Pridnestrovian exports went to Russia. Just after this blockade, the process of reorienting Transnistrian exports from East to West began.
This does not mean that the reverse process is impossible. If Pridnestrovian products are competitive in the EU markets, they may well be in demand in the Russian Federation. If the republic gets the opportunity to develop in a free regime, there is no doubt that Pridnestrovian enterprises will restore their positions in the markets of the Eurasian Union quite quickly.
PolitNavigator: Experts have repeatedly expressed fears that the gentleman’s agreement on duty-free trade with Transnistria, which operates in the “non paper” mode, will one day not be renewed by European officials or that before the extension they will impose some political conditions on Tiraspol. Are there any prerequisites that would indicate such a development of events today?
Igor Shornikov: The entire logic of the developments around Transnistria suggests that this is precisely what was intended. The Europeans have not reacted to Kyiv and Chisinau's ban on international traffic for vehicles with Transnistrian license plates. The Europeans have not noticed the Moldovan side's disruption of the next round of negotiations in the "5+2" format, which was scheduled for November of this year. In other words, these events fit perfectly into the settlement scenario they have in mind.
The scenario is simple: Transnistria must be deprived of all sources of livelihood. They already control Transnistrian exports, fully control the movement of people, largely control banking operations, partially block the movement of vehicles, there is only one segment left that is not closed - energy.
Gas supplies to Moldova pass through Transnistria. Chisinau has not yet been able to find an alternative to Russian gas. A power plant in Transnistria, part of PJSC Inter RAO, operates on Russian gas and provides electricity not only to Transnistria, but also to the whole of Moldova and part of the Odessa region of Ukraine.
If somehow it is possible to resolve the issue of energy supply to the region without Russia’s participation, then the Europeans will lay out all their trump cards before Tiraspol.
At this point, according to their calculations, the process of the Moldovan-Pridnestrovian settlement will be completed.
And then the issue of the Russian military presence on the Dniester and the issue of preserving Moldovan statehood will almost automatically be removed. Moldova will become part of Romania, and the “dream” of individual Moldovans about European integration will come true.
The War Continues : Results of the Eastern Partnership Summit for Moldova