Georgia, Moldova defy revisionist Russia. Analyst George Mchedlishvili says that "Russia is hell-bent to drag the post-Soviet states into the past".

Georgian analyst George Mchedlishvili tells commonspace.eu that "Moldova and Georgia have both made it to Vilnius braving a whole range of hostile moves and threats on the part of a revisionist Russia hell-bent to drag the post-Soviet states into the past".

For some it came as a complete surprise, but for others it was only to be expected. The Summit of the European Union Eastern Partnership that opens today in Vilnius has turned from being simply a celebration of the EU's relationship with its Eastern neighbours into an arena where the six Partnership countries have been forced to make difficult choices. Russia's decision to turn its own relationship with these countries into a zero sum game, forcing some of them to make embarrasing political u-turns against the will of their own people, has raised the stakes and opened a new situation with an unpredictable ending.

Some analysts are warning against overestimating the immediate importance of Vilnius. Georgian analyst George Mchedlishvili, a fellow at London's Chatham House and an Associate Professor at the University of Georgia told commonspace.eu that important as today's Vilnius Summit is one should not consider it in a "now-or-never" context, nor believe that initialing Association Agreement is a defining moment, rendering the path to Europe irreversible. There will be more chances for Ukraine and Armenia, since public opinion in the two countries favors European integration. And there will be more roadblocks for Georgia and Moldova, domestic and external alike. 

Mchedlishvili believes that the onus now rests with the European Union to deal with the new situation that has emerged. He told commonspace.eu:

"To a considerable extent, the ball is in the European court, in that at Vilnius, and in the direct aftermath, the EU will have to be more consistent and flexible, juggling several balls. In all six countries, albeit to a different extent, Europe is viewed as a repository of hopes and aspirations for a better future and normally functioning states. Moldova and Georgia have both made it to Vilnius braving a whole range of hostile moves and threats on the part of a revisionist Russia hell-bent to drag the post-Soviet states into the past. So, Europe should reward this commitment and reciprocate. Which is a big question, given the EU's and its individual member state's past record of appeasing Moscow.

As far as Georgia is concerned,  over the last several years the country has managed to partially extricate itself from the dependence on Russia for energy, as well as readjusted its agricultural sector and therefore will be able to withstand Russia's economic pressure better than Moldova. But this might also mean that Moscow might be tempted to go as far as use of brutal force again to derail Georgia from its westward orientation."

He however warns that the countries that choose the path of EU Association need also to be aware of their own duties and responsabilities:

"The potential difficulties for the EaP countries are not only external. Both AA and DCFTA require thorough reforms in many areas and legislative alignment and introduction of EU norms. This might prove painful and costly in the short term for economically weak states, so a great deal of flexibility and strategic planning in assisting the eastern neighbors to meet these standards will be required on the part of EU."

source: commonspace.eu

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Finland’s decision to buy one million landmines creates a serious contradiction in the policy of the European Union, and is symbolic of a bigger dilemma facing European countries as they get used to the need to acquire “hard” power to face an increasing threat from Russia. Finland is seeking to acquire one million anti-personnel mines at a cost of 100 million euros. Finland, together with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia last year abandoned the Ottawa agreement, the international framework that bans the use of anti-personnel mines, which the EU had been instrumental in establishing and supporting. All five countries cite the threat from Moscow as the reason. Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finland’s national news agency STT that officials are now gathering information from suppliers regarding the deal, the AFP news agency reports. Helsinki would like domestic manufacturers to supply the mines, with contracts signed by the end of 2027 and production up and running by 2028. “It would be useful in many ways if Finnish companies produced the anti-personnel mines in Finland,” Mikkonen said. About half a dozen Finnish firms qualify, he told STT. “However, at this stage, buying the mines from abroad is not totally ruled out,” he added. LANDMINES PROVIDE THE EU WITH BOTH A CONTRADICTION, AND A DILEMMA Eliminating landmine contamination worldwide is one of the EU’s main soft power postures, and it basks in its record as the biggest funder of anti-landmine action in the world. But the fact that 5 of its 27 member states  have now left the Ottawa Treaty dents the EU moral high ground. It is a contradiction that is too big and important to be ignored. It also presents the European Union with a deeper dilemma. The threat from Russia is changing what the EU has stood for decades, namely a force for good able to mobilise its considerable soft power for the greater good of humanity. How the Union will implement this change will define its future. In the meantime landmines have not become any less lethal, benign, or unimportant. They remain in many parts of the world a major threat to life, an impediment to prosperity, and a potential trigger to further conflict. The 22 EU members states that still adhere to the Ottawa treaty must regroup, and be more assertive in their quest against anti-personnel land mines. All the reasons why they supported the Ottawa treaty in the first place still exist. The message must be clear: NO TO LANDMINES!
Editor's choice
News
Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Armenia should sign and ratify a peace treaty with Azerbaijan before 2031, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. He described the objective as the top priority for his administration. Earlier, the Armenian prime minister also spoke about a possible land-swap with Azerbaijan Armenia and Azerbaijan should agree to establish a clear, conventional border without enclaves or exclaves, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. Armenia controls three Azeri enclaves inside its borders while Baku controls one Armenian enclave – those could be subject to a land swap, Pashinyan announced.

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)