Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia start to live in fuzzy European dream
Tbilisi, Chisinau and Kiev signed the Association Agreement with the EU. Now the citizens of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine will consider themselves Europeans, but they will not be able to work in Europe. They will have to buy more European goods and less of their own products. They will be destroying corruption under the supervision of corrupt officials and wait for new shocks to come in the belief that only Putin is to blame for all their tribulations.
"The European Union will take over solemn obligations to these three countries, - European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said on June 25. - For the EU, signing these documents will be a solemn commitment to accompany every step of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine in the transformation of these countries to stable and prosperous democracies."
Beautiful, but hypocritical speech. Are members of the European Union democratic? What about the corrupt schemes of lobbying the decision-making process in Germany? What about lawsuits in Spain against the bankers that have plundered European money? What about the charges against ministers in Greece, who fabricated macroeconomic indicators to make the country a member of the European Union? To crown it all, what about Romania and Bulgaria with their corruption in judiciary and tax systems, or France with its racial hatred of the Roma and Albanians - are they democratic countries? Then there is a question to the above-mentioned three newcomers: why can't you, ladies and gentlemen, establish democracy in your own countries by yourself? Can't you do it without a supervisor?
"The Association Agreement has nothing to do with democratic standards, - deputy of the Parliament of Moldova, Grigory Petrenko, told Pravda.Ru. - The EU has serious issues about human rights and democratic standards. Generally, it is not clear why someone believes that the EU is a standard of democracy. The world does not revolve around the EU. There are plenty of other centers in the world - political and economic ones. Reduce policy to relations with the EU - this is absolute political short-sightedness."
So, Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova are heading towards Europe. However, the EU Association Agreement with the three countries do not stipulate an opportunity for these countries to enter the European Union. Turkey signed the association agreement 20 years ago, but things are right where they started. The newly baptized association members are all politically unstable, and these problems of instability are directed against Russia - South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Transnistria and the New Russia (Novorossia). Therefore, one does not even have to count for investments and the movement of production from Europe to these countries.
This instability closes the doors to NATO as well, even though Tbilisi, Kiev and Chisinau are so eager to become NATO members as well. NATO does not accept the countries staying in a conflict with a nuclear power as new members. The fate of these countries is clear: they will work with the EU, albeit as sales markets for European goods. They will supply their own products to Europe at meager quotas, but it is obvious that they will have to blame Russia for all that.
Here is an example of this resentment: "I have no idea what benefit Russia may gain from siding with Ossetian separatists, - President of the Diplomatic Academy of Georgia, political scientist Soso Tsintsadze told Pravda.Ru. - The Crimea is a different story - it was given away to Ukraine by Khrushchev, there's history in this issue, so one can understand that. But why Ossetia, what the hell? Why does Russia need to side with some 15-20 thousand idlers, who live there on the Russian money, want a referendum and then annexation? I do not understand - doesn't Russia have headaches from all that? Let's assume that Russia has solved all problems connected with the Crimea, and now Russia needs a new problem? What can Russia do in the Tskhinvali region - throw a rock at Georgia?"
Brussels bureaucrats fuel similar sentiments. Jean-Claude Juncker, who runs for the post of the head of the European Commission, called on the EU to accelerate the signing of the association agreement with Moldova "to tie it to the West," because "it risks to become another victim of Russian aggression" otherwise.
As a matter of fact, the aggressor is the West. As it comes clear from the cables of American diplomats with the U.S. State Department, published on WikiLeaks, the main goal of the Eastern Partnership is to "weaken Russia's control over these countries."
"Like us, Poland tends to attract key countries on the eastern border of Europe, such as Ukraine and Georgia, to Western institutions." Eastern Partnership is a project defended by Poland and Sweden. It was created to deepen EU's relations with Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan to oppose Russia in Eastern Europe," an American diplomat in Warsaw wrote to the State Department.
The purpose of the West in this project is to show opposition to Russia. The prosperity of "Eastern partners" is only a coverup. The West is a little worried about the fact that such opposition often ends with military conflicts. This happened in Transnistria in 1992, it was so in Georgia in 2008, and it is so now in Ukraine. Now that the three countries have turned to the West, there is a danger that Georgia would be lured into a conflict, should South Ossetia join Russia (the parliament of South Ossetia has already made such an appeal), and Transnistria rebel against Moldova's joining to Romania. Ukraine is burning in the fire of the civil war.
We will not dwell much on the reasons behind the hatred Russia in the West. This is a civilization dispute, a wish to include Russia in the sphere of influence and gain control over its resources. In this context, we would like to ask why the Orthodox countries of Georgia and Ukraine did not want to follow the path of Serbia, which already has the status of a EU candidate and enjoys the free trade zone with the Customs Union? The government is Serbia is far from being pro-Russian, by the way.
"We, from the point of view of our mentality, believe that EU promises us democracy and prosperity. This is not true to fact. From the point of view of Europe, these slogans rather imply a step closer to liberal standards. These standards are pernicious for most of the countries, because their population is not competitive on the European labor market. Respectively, this will be the most underpaid category of people, - Aza Mihranyan, the head of the Institute of Economics of the CIS countries told Pravda.Ru. - Orthodox Ukraine already celebrates the signing of the association agreement by organizing a week-long gay pride parade to struggle against "and pro-Russian provocateurs."
How should Russia react?
"Quietly. Russia must consistently and clearly defend her economic interests, national economic interests of Russia, - says Aza Mihranyan. - Russia has no right to interfere in these decisions. But Russia has the right and obligation to protect her own interests, including economic ones. If the results and consequences of signing the agreement have a negative effect, and they will have this effect, then, according to the legal framework of the Eurasian Economic Union, the national legal framework, the CIS free trade zone, Russia has a lot of leverage to protect her national market from large-scale penetration of more competitive products from those countries. This is the sovereign right of the republics to simply evaluate the consequences that may ensue," said Aza Mihranyan.
Will Europe feed Ukraine?