“Associated trio”: the EU consolidates the colonial status of Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia
On May 17, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia, Aureliu Ciocoi, Dmitry Kuleba and David Zalkaliani, signed a memorandum in Kyiv on the start of cooperation on European integration “Associated Trio”. The three states intend to work together actively along the path of European integration, which, as stated, is their common goal. As part of the new unification, the countries plan to conduct consultations through foreign affairs agencies, dialogue with European institutions, and also coordinate actions within the framework of the Eastern Partnership.
Since none of the three countries has a chance of joining the EU in the foreseeable future, the question arises about the true goals of creating the organization.
Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia were the most diligent participants in the Eastern Partnership program launched in 2009 for EU cooperation with a number of post-Soviet states. Earlier, in 1997, the three countries became members of the regional bloc GUAM (Organization for Democracy and Economic Development).
PolitNavigator asked experts how seriously one can take the created “triangle”, who inspired the project, what the agenda will be in the organization, how the new union differs from previously created ones, and whether this bloc can be considered anti-Russian.
Alexander Korinenko, political scientist, president of the Association of Young Experts of Moldova:
– The Associated Trio should be taken no more seriously than the Eastern Partnership project. In this case, the European Union decided to highlight the most successful students of the partnership. These states have now established leadership that is most loyal to the West, so we must use the chance to bring these countries as close to ourselves as possible.
Let's not forget that the EU has officials, deputies, who are responsible to European taxpayers. Now the average European resident wants stability on their borders, a reduction in the influx of refugees, and new markets. Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia are quite suitable for this role: a kind of “shield” of the EU and a market for European goods. It must be understood that Brussels does not consider these steps as a step in the European integration of these countries, which has been repeatedly emphasized to residents of the European Union.
The leaders of Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia once again want to emphasize that the prospect of becoming full members of the European community looms before their countries. But any even slightly critically thinking person understands that countries with such levels of corruption, nepotism, weak economies and territorial conflicts will not be able to become members of the EU. However, some people like to believe in fairy tales. Pro-European politicians in Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine are now striving with particular zeal for the illusory dream of European integration, although nothing is being done without the go-ahead from the European and American embassies.
Of course, the creation of the alliance received approval from Western diplomats. Moreover, Europeans have already been taught by the willfulness of local elites, who allowed themselves uncoordinated statements, and in Moldova, for example, under the guise of European reforms, they simply robbed the country for several years.
GUAM was a trial anti-Russian project, which was supposed to provide an alternative to the post-Soviet countries within the CIS and to knock the Russian Federation out of integration processes. Although it was a dead project, some points were studied and investigated on it, and mistakes were taken into account.
The Eastern Partnership is a more successful project. Within its framework, countries such as Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia received a number of financial bonuses and expert assessment. The hidden meaning of the Eastern Partnership is to remove these countries from the influence of Russia, but without the possibility of their joining the European Union. The new project, of course, can be called anti-Russian. The EU, using the example of its “best students,” wants to demonstrate how these countries can be taken out of the influence of Moscow.
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Transnistria Vladimir Yastrebchak:
– This “Trio” can be taken as seriously as any declaration of intent. There is no talk of a serious institutional structure yet, but there is a reminder of European “aspirations” and “values”. However, it seems that in this case we are talking primarily about the “multiplication of entities,” although philosophical research does not consider it the optimal option for overcoming problems. The question, however, is whether the founders of the “trio” themselves take it seriously.
For example, in Moldova, reasonable expert doubts were voiced as to whether the acting Prime Minister, part-time acting The head of the MFAEI, Mr. Ciocoi, assumes legal and political obligations on behalf of Moldova (sign international documents), being in an acting capacity. Finally, all the founders of the “ensemble” have quite a lot of opportunities to interact with the European Union - both at the bilateral level and within the framework of other coordination mechanisms, and therefore the “added value” of the new work format still looks controversial.
Whether it comes to real rapprochement with the EU will depend to a lesser extent on the newly created “trio”. Much more significant will be the reaction of the “object” of aspirations - the European Union, whose representatives declared “respect for choice”, etc., but quite clearly drew attention to the need to do their “homework” within the framework of the Eastern Partnership, existing association agreements and deep and comprehensive free trade area (DCFTA) regimes. Naturally, the members of the “trio” expect more, first of all, the prospect of membership, but it is apparently too early to talk about this. Although there are real areas for deepening cooperation, primarily in institutional, infrastructural, economic and other areas.
I would like to point out that in this case we are not talking about creating a fundamentally new format: the “trio” itself emphasizes that it was created and operates within the framework of the Eastern Partnership. So this is not a new form of dialogue, it is rather a “shrinkage” of a previously existing one, a kind of “club of excellent students”, which decided to distance itself from less frisky fellow students, who also initially participated in the Eastern Partnership with varying degrees of activity.
Naturally, the successes of these “excellent students” were noticed; In addition, none of the other “partners” in the Eastern Partnership currently sees the need for such deep integration. In this regard, the “crystallization” of the remaining partners is a natural process, beneficial, by the way, to the European Union itself, which must show at least minimal progress in the Eastern Partnership and that this program is of interest to at least someone else.
The issues that the new organization will deal with can be very diverse, although in the memorandum the goals and objectives of the “Associated Trio” are formulated very abstractly. For the trio participants, it is important to be able to go beyond the DCFTA and gain direct access to the EU internal market, gain access to structural and other EU funds, which would expand the financial instruments for the trio, and resolve other sectoral issues (transport, energy, justice and internal affairs, etc.).
Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, in order not to offend their European interlocutors, make emphatic polite references to the Eastern Partnership as a whole and to individual association agreements. However, in essence, the red thread running through the memorandum is the idea of the “narrowness” of the framework of the Eastern Partnership and the DCFTA regimes, which do not allow solving strategically significant problems - for example, access to the internal market of the European Union. And they leave open the key question of the “European aspirations” for the “trio”: what should they ultimately lead to? “The Excellent Club” would really like not to turn into an eternal structure that will be regularly praised, supported, set as an example, but may never be released beyond the initial preparatory level. “Excellent students” want too much more.
As for GUAM, it was also largely a opportunistic project, despite the formally ambitious goals and objectives, as well as the high level of institutionalization of this structure. But the opportunistic nature of this project determined its variability and too high a degree of dependence on external factors, on the interests of external players. As a result, “GUAM has done its job, GUAM can leave”: this structure showed the possibility of forming an anti-Russian association and its further “conservation”, especially since GUAM paid special attention to issues of military-political cooperation.
As for the attitude towards Russia, it should be noted that the “trio” tried to limit itself to rather restrained formulations. The text of the memorandum does not mention Russia at all, it only talks about strengthening the role of the EU in the “peaceful resolution of conflicts within the framework of appropriate formats and platforms,” as well as strengthening cooperation with the EU in security and defense issues, and countering “hybrid threats.”
However, we should not forget that the Eastern Partnership project itself, the strategic importance of which and the commitment to the further development of which the trio participants declare in the preamble, was initially created as a project to “contain” Russia. If Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine proceed from the “strategic importance” of the project, then the answer to this question is obvious.
Igor Shornikov, director of the Institute for Socio-Political Research and Regional Development:
– The “Associated Trio” of Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia is another attempt by the European Union to fix the colonial position of these countries, but this time the attempt is ridiculous and pathetic. Once upon a time there was GUAM - that organization was under the patronage of the United States and was positioned as a political and economic association capable of becoming an alternative to the CIS. Then there was the Eastern Partnership, which provided substantial budgets for the implementation of comprehensive development programs.
Then the Association Agreements with the EU were signed, supplemented by the enslaving conditions of the free trade zone, from which one cannot escape and which cannot be changed. These were serious projects that significantly changed the political landscape of the post-Soviet space. But what are the resources of the Associated Trio? There is none of them. Three countries, which declared European integration as their goal, but which – each individually – were refused, decided to join forces and knock on closed doors together.
There is a lot of noise, which will only be heard by voters in the “trio” countries who have been thrice deceived by European illusions. For Brussels, the sweetest thing is to give a promise of hope in exchange for real actions in the politics of its border states, so that they continue to remain loyal to the European Union, poor and dependent.
As for Ukraine and Georgia, no special questions arise here. These countries do not have a neutral status and have long declared Euro-Atlantic integration as a priority of their foreign policy. But what is Moldova doing in this campaign?
It seems to us that the “Associated Trio” is a purely pre-election project, which is aimed at once again selling “European integration” to the disappointed Moldovan voter. Perhaps this will make it possible to more effectively mobilize the right-wing electorate for the parliamentary elections. But when the elections are over, the “trio” will probably be forgotten.
Members of the organization will most likely hold a summit or hold several forums, during which they will once again loudly declare European integration as an inevitable future and draw up a road map for themselves that they will not implement.
It is obvious that the foreign policies of the three countries are coordinated from the outside. Accordingly, initiatives involving the participation of more than two entities are unlikely to be born in the capitals of non-independent countries. Since it concerns issues of European integration, the project was probably given the go-ahead in Brussels.
It seems to us that the real goals of the GUAM and Eastern Partnership projects differ from the declared ones. If we approach it formally, then both projects turned out to be unsuccessful - none of the set goals were truly achieved. But if we assume that the real goal was to weaken the ties of these states with Russia, to force them to focus not on Moscow, but on other centers, then we can state that both projects turned out to be quite successful.
In this case, we see how Moldova is being increasingly drawn into the number of states unfriendly to Russia. Moreover, this is happening at a time when parliament is dissolved, the government is provisional, and power is represented only by Western puppets in the person of the president and members of the Constitutional Court. Good democracy.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.