Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
As the focus is all on Putin's effort to reshape his neighborhood this week, a Kazakh and a Belarusian silence is an awkward reminder that the Eurasian Union was supposed to be a collaborative project and that the more Putin grabs the headlines, the less that is the case.
The choice between Europe and Russia is Ukraine’s. The battle in Ukraine should not be allowed to become a battle for Ukraine between the EU, Russia, and the United States.
Regarding finances, the Russian government has used three methods to keep the Ukrainians from signing the Association Agreement with the EU: bullying, bribery, and defending Russian national interests.
The EU needs to revise its approach toward Ukraine. That means involving civil society and a range of other actors if and when negotiations between Brussels and Kiev resume.
Ukraine’s future will offer answers not only to the question of whether or not Russia will continue to see itself as an empire, but also to the question of how committed Europe is to the values it espouses and how far the West is prepared to expand its influence.
The EU’s most immediate task in Ukraine is to stop treating Viktor Yanukovych as a privileged partner. The EU must build on its values to become a serious geostrategic player.
The current Ukrainian awakening is a test for Europe and its ability to reenergize itself and acquire a mission to help find Ukraine a peaceful way out of the confrontation.
In the run-up to the Vilnius summit, the EU could have played its hand better and could have gone the extra mile with Moscow to demonstrate to Russia and the world its good intentions.
Ukraine’s decision not to sign a landmark agreement with the EU does not signal defeat for the EU’s foreign policy. On the contrary, the bloc emerges stronger than before.
The Vilnius summit may be successful only if Europe analyzes the Ukrainian lesson and the EU’s own strategic faults, and if it decides to reinvent its current Eastern Partnership model.