Eurasian Union nightmare for US and Europe


Pro-Kremlin activists march during a rally in support of ethnic Russians in Ukraine in central Moscow, March 2, 2014. (Photo:AFP/Dmitry Serebryakov)
By: Sabah Ayoub
Vladimir Putin’s political resilience in the Middle East bolstered by the creation of the Eurasian Union, similar to the European Union, is a nightmare for the Americans and Europeans. And through Ukraine’s revolutionary coup, America and the EU have decided to intervene in the emergence of a union made up of former Soviet republics under Russia’s leadership.
This time, Kiev’s “revolution” did not have a color or even a common slogan. There were no special scarves for the “revolutionaries” and food and drinks were not delivered to the tents. The “revolutionary” masses were not trained on peacefully toppling the regime. It was mostly made up of extremist right wing thugs from the Orange Revolution of 2004.
Europe and the US are well aware that “peaceful protests” would not have achieved their goals this time and the 2004 experience could not be repeated successfully. They are both bankrupt and running out of time, with spring just around the corner. But this year, it is a Russian spring that both economically sick continents are allergic to.

This painful allergic reaction is due to the expected launch of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s most ambitious regional project. It entails the creation of the Eurasian Union, along the lines of the EU, which would include Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine, in addition to Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. The huge project’s first agreement is expected this spring and will be launched officially on the first day of 2015.The idea of bringing together the European and Asian countries of the former Soviet Union in a union has been Putin’s main ambition since taking power. It will include common economic, political, and security agreements, the guarantee of common interests, and the development of certain sectors. It has also been welcomed by most of the concerned countries. In its first inception, the union began in 2010 with a core group of countries – Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus – and in 2012 it developed into a unified economic zone.
The upcoming Eurasian project under Russia’s leadership will, of course, be one of the worst nightmares for the EU. It will mean the appearance of a strong entity, which will be able to assert itself on two continents and on the international scene. For the United States, the project will also threaten its interests in the region and will be a return of its “red” nightmare from the Cold War. Thus, in the midst of economic failure and political retreat, the EU and the US found themselves unable to stop the advance of an economically vigorous Eurasian project, which will be superior in terms of energy, security, and culture. So they did what they do best, encouraging chaos and carrying out coups. Ukraine is one of the countries whose entry to the Eurasian Union is feared most, with its various ethnicities, political divisions, and being the historical scene of compromise between the West and Russia. Thus, the US and the EU publically supported the recent coup. Joining the EU was the main demand of the movement in Kiev this time around. For “revolutionary necessity,” the calls for democracy, removing the dictatorial regime, and stopping Russia’s control were later added to the list of demands.
Western political and media campaigns

The details of the signing of the “Eurasian Union” agreement was absent from most analysis in the US, France, and the UK. Media campaigns focused on the promises of the revolution, “Ukrainian police repression against the demonstrators,” “the corruption of the Ukrainian dictator,” and “the Ukranian regime’s dependence on Russia.” Once more, the West reduced all of Ukraine to Kiev and the 45 million inhabitants of the country to the demonstrators in Maidan. None of the supporters of the Ukrainian “revolution” were concerned that the opposition does not have an alternative political project and did not present a clear plan for the leadership of the country in the future. 
When Russia decided to defend Russian citizens and Russian speakers and its interests in Crimea, as announced by its officials, western political and media campaigns began playing the tune of “civil war” and the threat of “division,” “Putin’s violation of international law,” and his “aggression against Ukrainian sovereignty.” Very few articles indicated the fact that many Ukrainians support special relations with Russia and do not believe they are represented by the new government. Some even welcome a Russian military intervention in the country. A few cameras could not ignore the banners hung in Simferopol and Sevastopol, which said, “Where we are, Russia exists,” and “Russia is the graveyard of bad ideas. It cannot be defeated.”
Those who launched the coup campaign in Ukraine are those who have the most to lose from the Eurasian project. They neglected the coup’s outcome and that an illegitimate and unelected government is now in power, made up of extreme right-wing groups, and which does not represent the majority of Ukrainians. More seriously, the new Ukrainian government does not have an economic or political program on how to lead the country in the future. Some journalists indicated that new Ukrainians officials requested 35 billion US dollars from their allies to avert an economic collapse this year, after Russia suspended its enormous aid to the country. This will be a new dilemma for the already faltering EU.
The US and EU sounded the alarms about Russian actions in Crimea and called for immediate international intervention to avert “civil war and division.” However, the region has not witnessed an ethnic or communal conflict in 25 years. Politically, the EU and the US quickly called for international mediation to reach an agreement between Russia and Ukraine. Russia, on the other hand, admitted that it has military and civil interests in Crimea and announced its intention to “defend the region” by all appropriate means. The 90 minute phone conversation between Putin and his US counterpart Barack Obama did not change any of those facts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *