CIS Minsk summit highlights sharp divisions in the post-Soviet space.

A summit meeting of the heads of state of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) took place in Minsk, the capital city of Belarus, on Friday 10 October. This was the first full summit since the Ukrainian crisis erupted earlier this year. In many ways the crisis has highlighted the failure of the CIS as an efficient organisation that can deal with the many challenges that continue to overshadow the post-Soviet space nearly a quarter of a century after the collapse of the USSR.

The biggest challenge of all is how to manage the relationship between Russia and the other members. Some of the CIS members still think the CIS can offer a framework for defining Russia's role, and tame its expansionist instincts. But an underlying sense of exasperation pervades. The three Baltic republics never joined after the collapse of the USSR, and instead quickly became members of the European Union. Georgia joined late and left early. It also had hopes that the CIS could help redefine its relations with Russia, but bitterly disappointed after Russia recognised Abkhazia and South Ossetia, left the group in 2009. This year Ukraine started the process to leave the CIS also. This is not surprising following Russia's occupation and annexation of Crimea, in gross violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity - of which Russia, ironically, was a guarantor. Ukraine was only represented in Minsk at Ambassador level, as befits a country that is at the exit door.

The other participants tried hard to put up a brave face, hailing the CIS as an important forum in their set-piece speeches.

The activities of CIS have always complied with the principles of equality, mutual respect, good neighborhood and goodwill of all member states, Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov said, according to Russia-24 TV channel. "Turkmenistan is confident that the potential of CIS may and should be used to maintain the regional security balance, prevent conflicts and approve the negotiation tools as the natural and acceptable means of resolving them," Turkmen president said.

Uzbekistan regards the CIS as a structure which gives great opportunity to maintain direct international dialogue, said Uzbek President Islam Karimov. He added that the CIS creates conditions to discuss vital issues, resolve the disputes and disagreements among the member states on the basis of the sufficiently strong legal framework, as well as the created mechanisms and tools of interaction.

Azerbaijan's President, Ilham Aliev, spoke of the need to discuss all issues of concern "in such an open and sincere atmosphere". He went on to add that Azerbaijan attaches great importance to its participation in the CIS.

In fact none of the big issues facing the CIS countries, including the serious differences between them, that has often led to violent confrontations between them, was on the agenda at the summit. Instead there were sharp exchanges between the Presidents of Russia and Moldova, criticism of the President of Ukraine for his absence, and a distinct cold atmosphere between some of the participants.

The leaders sought refuge in hankering back to the great victories of the Great Patriotic War (World War II). Russia's President, Vladimir Putin reminded his colleagues that next year would be the 70th anniversary of the end of that war. "Our common duty is to celebrate this momentous anniversary together," Putin said, whilst also taking the opportunity to invite his colleagues for the celebrations  next May in Moscow.

Attempts to give the CIS some real significance have been ongoing throughout its existence. It seems that Kazakhstan, which now takes over the Chairmanship and will host the next Summit in Astana late next year, will have another go. Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev said that the country will continue to work to turn the CIS into a framework for trade and economic relations, as well as making it a free trade zone. "Further cooperation covers transit and transport sphere, agro-industrial complex and food security," Nazarbayev said, adding that during its presidency of the CIS, Kazakhstan will also focus on issues of security in the sphere of humanitarian cooperation.

Commonspace.eu political editor said in a comment:

The biggest problem of the CIS is that it continues to be perceived both by its members and by the wider international community as an instrument of Russia. Whilst this is largely true, Russia has however failed to turn it into a genuine forum where problems between itself and the other members, and between the other members themselves, can be ironed out. So every time there has been a crisis in the region, the CIS has always found itself relegated to a passive, and largely useless role. Yet for both Russia and the other members it also has its uses, a channel of communication and an opportunity to reassure those in their respective countries who are still nostalgic for the past that all is not lost. Real co- operation in the post-Soviet space has however now shifted to other structures, including the newly established Eurasian Economic Union, and the Collective and Security Treaty Organisation. Here co-operation is more tangible. But not everybody who was in Minsk is ready for this type of co-operation. Moldova has already clearly opted for closer relations with Europe, and Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan are too protective of their national independence to follow Russia's lead. Putin's dream of recreating the USSR in some kind of modern version remains for the moment therefore a faraway utopia and is unlikely ever to be achieved except through force.

source: commonspace.eu, with additional reporting from news agencies.

photo: Leaders of CIS countries chatting informally after their summit in Minsk on 10 October 2014. relations between some of them was reported to be considerally chilly.


 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

António Costa, President of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, represented the EU at the 21st EU-Canada summit, which took place in Montreal on 29 and 30 October 2026. Prime Minister Mark Carney represented Canada. The summit marked a major milestone in EU-Canada relations, paving the way for an even broader and deeper political partnership. Leaders took stock of progress made since the previous EU-Canada summit and issued a joint statement launching an Alliance for the Future. Building on their longstanding strategic partnership, the alliance aims to deepen cooperation and create a common prosperity and economic security space. This is a moment to act with clarity and ambition. By aligning more closely – economically, technologically and strategically – Canada and the EU are building an Alliance for the Future based on trust and shared values that meets the scale of today's challenges and opportunities and will reinforce the freedom, prosperity and safety our citizens expect and deserve. We are stronger together. Building on their existing Strategic Partnership Agreement, the EU and Canada will deepen political engagement and coordination on shared priorities. Leaders welcomed the increasingly frequent exchanges with Canadian ministers at relevant Council and ministerial meetings. The EU and Canada will build on these exchanges through regular summits, joint ministerial meetings and cooperation committees. The partners will work to define the concept of an ever-closer association of Canada to the EU, short of full membership, by the 2027 EU-Canada summit. (click image to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)