First and foremost, unfortunately, CIS is a failure as an organization. At present, the Commonwealth is nothing but a format for high level negotiations between the countries, which have been discussing the divorce process since 1991. It became obvious that this highly complicated procedure cannot be completed in a couple of years because of complex issues of finance, territory, and property. The fact that the head of Ukrainian state became a speaker at these meetings shows that a compromise has been reached to relieve the tension among the CIS members, which were irritated by Russia’s claims of leadership. Leonid Kuchma as a chairman, representing Ukraine as an associate member, seemed like the best candidate. On the other hand, it is common knowledge that Russia supported Kuchma for this role, and it was a logical move considering the existing relationship between Ukraine and Russia in the context of our domestic political situation. Russia suggested advantageous international PR schemes to improve its neighbor’s image.
As regards to the practical side of the issue, one should wonder about the plans and perspectives of Ukrainian authorities. The concept of developing CIS as a free trade zone looks utterly insufficient. Most of the known cases of macro-regional integration constitute not only free trade zones, but also complex political and economic international structures and, as a result, regional organizations. The most obvious example today is the European Union. Thus, treating CIS merely as a free trade zone is rather superficial.
Another thing that makes one uneasy is lack of a clear vision for the development of the Eurasian region as a whole among the Ukrainian political elite. We tend to react and deal with urgent problems and suggestions coming mostly from Russia, but we do not have a doctrine of our own. Thus one should not expect any CIS revolution by this fall.
I believe there is no reason to start a political campaign around the fact of purely ritual diplomatic character, since this would spoil Ukraine’s image further. Against the background of the authorities claiming that they did not change the European choice, the situation looks rather awkward. I believe those who stood at the cradle of creating the technology for the Kyiv summit either made a mistake or let the president down in terms of the effect on his image. Since Ukraine is now formally presiding over CIS, the West may think that it finally made its political choice. The situation is complicated in that on the level of domestic policy we speak of some technologies and attempts to strengthen the image, while the significance of the event exceeds the limits of our interpretation by far. Again, for Europe and the US, Ukraine’s activated position in CIS can mean only that it begins to turn to Eurasia. Having found ourselves in this position, for some reason, we start to make excuses. Why should we? I think the latest CIS castling will really hamper the dialog. So, we should not say that Europe does not want to dialog with Kyiv, but acknowledge that it was our choice to behave once again in an incomprehensible and mysterious way. We define our motives after the fact, and this is the real problem.
Speaking about the statements of country’s leaders on forming the Kyiv-Moscow-Berlin axis, one should note that it is old news in the global politics. Generally speaking, the Berlin- Kyiv axis was developed by German geopolitics after the First World War and in the interwar period. So, an attempt to join in on the good relations between Berlin and Moscow, and calling it a new “axis” looks more like wishful thinking than reality. Under the current geopolitical processes it would probably be at least hasty to speak about such triangle, since there are other partnerships of mutual influence and transregional character that are being formed right now (e.g. Paris-Berlin-Moscow-Beijing). Ukraine should formulate its position taking into account this political context.
On the other hand, one can speak about a certain axis in the context of the on-going negotiations about the gas consortium, and the tactically advantageous situation in Europe for Russia and Ukraine. The situation is favorable because of the current conflict over Iraq between Germany and France, on the one hand, and the US, on the other. However, this axis can only be a part of some big project, and Ukraine is not able to be an active provider for it at this point.
