The End of Ambiguity: Excavating the Remains of the EU–Russia ‘Strategic Partnership’

Author(s):  
Hiski Haukkala
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
В.И. Герасимчук ◽  
V. Gerasymchuk

Глобальные перемены в мировой политике и экономике происходят под решающим влиянием стран «Большой семерки» и БРИКС, придя на смену биполярному миру (США – СССР). После развала СССР каждая из бывших 15 республик, а ныне независимых государств, выстраивает экономические отношения со странами-соседями, международными и региональными объединениями в соответствие со своими стратегическими намерениями. В статье анализируются тенденции социально-экономического развитии Украины и Казахстана в течение 1991-2020гг. Изложены особенности моделей трансформации экономик двух стран. Методологической основой исследования выступает сравнительный ретроспективный анализ происходящих изменений в экономиках обоих государств с применением рейтинговых инструментов и механизмов. Указаны различия в векторах при выборе стратегического партнерства: для Украины – это НАТО, США и ЕС, для Казахстана – ОДКБ, Россия, СНГ и ЕАЭС, а также Китай, США, государства Центральной Азии и ЕС. Обращено внимание на уязвимость национальных экономик от влияния мировых финансовых кризисов, разрывов прежних кооперационных связей, потерей традиционных рынков сбыта, комплекса нерешенных внутренних проблем. Дана оценка экспортного потенциала экономик двух стран; подчеркнута необходимость увеличения в его структуре продукции с высокой добавленной стоимостью. Детально рассмотрены тенденции развития двустороннего торгово-экономического сотрудничества. Предложен комплекс мер по увеличению товарооборота между Украиной и Казахстаном. Global changes in world politics and economy are taking place under the decisive influence of the G7 and BRICS countries, replacing the bipolar world (USA - USSR). After the collapse of the USSR, each of the former 15 republics, now independent states, is building economic relations with neighboring countries, international and regional associations in accordance with their strategic intentions. The article analyzes the trends in the socio-economic development of Ukraineand Kazakhstanduring 1991-2020. The features of the models of transformation of the economies of the two countries are stated. The methodological basis of the study is a comparative retrospective analysis of the ongoing changes in the economies of both countries using rating instruments and mechanisms. Differences in vectors when choosing a strategic partnership are indicated: for Ukraine, these are NATO, the USA and the EU, for Kazakhstan– the CSTO, Russia, the CIS and the EAEU, as well as China, the USA, the Central Asian states and the EU. Attention is drawn to the vulnerability of national economies to the impact of global financial crises, breaks of previous cooperation ties, loss of traditional sales markets, and a set of unresolved internal problems. The assessment of the export potential of the economies of the two countries is given; emphasized the need to increase its structure of products with high added value. Trends in the development of bilateral trade and economic cooperation are examined in detail. A set of measures has been proposed to increase trade between Ukraineand Kazakhstan.


Author(s):  
Ramūnas Vilpišauskas

For Lithuania, the geopolitical motive to join the European Union (EU) in order to prevent a repetition of the 1940s occupation has been as important as a motive to “return to Europe.” This motivation to become part of the West led the country’s political elites to conceptualize accession into the EU as an important part of the transition reforms which were expected to modernize Lithuania’s economy, public administration, and governance as well as contribute to the country’s security and create conditions for economic catching up. Membership in the EU, accession into NATO, and good neighborly relations became the three cornerstones of Lithuania’s foreign policy since the early 1990s and enjoyed broad political support. It was this support that arguably allowed for the maintenance of political and administrative mobilization and consistency of preparations for the membership during the pre-accession process. Public support for the EU membership remained above the EU average since accession in 2004. Around the time of accession, a new concept of Lithuania as “a regional leader” was formulated by the core of the nation’s foreign policy makers. The concept of a regional leader implied active efforts of mediating between Eastern neighbors and the EU, often in coordination with Poland, which was driven by the desire to stabilize the Eastern neighborhood and advance relations between Eastern neighbors and the EU and NATO. Although coalition building within the EU has been fluctuating between a strategic partnership with Poland and Baltic-Nordic cooperation, also most recently the New Hanseatic league, attention to the Eastern neighborhood and geopolitical concerns originating from perceived aggressive Russian policies remained a defining characteristic of the country’s European policy independent of personalities and political parties, which have been at the forefront of policy making. Completion of integration into the EU, in particular in the fields of energy and transport, as well as dealing with “leftovers” from accession into the EU, such as joining the Schengen area and the euro zone, became the other priorities since 2004. Lithuania has been one of the fastest converging countries in the EU in terms of GDP per capita since its accession. However, membership in the EU Single Market also had controversial side effects. Relatively large flows of emigrants to other EU member states generated political debates about the quality of governance in Lithuania and its long-term demographic trends such as a decreasing and aging population. Introduction of the euro in 2015 was perceived by the public as the main factor behind price rises, making inflation the most important public issue in 2016–2018. High per capita income growth rates as well as the prospect of the United Kingdom exiting the EU triggered discussions about excessive dependency on EU funding, the potential effects of its decline after 2020, and sources of economic growth. There are increasingly divergent opinions regarding further deepening of integration within the EU, especially in regard to alignment of member states’ foreign and security policies as well as tax harmonization. Still, membership in the EU is rarely questioned, even by those who oppose further integration and advocate a “Europe of nations.”


Author(s):  
Bas Hooijmaaijers ◽  
Stephan Keukeleire

Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) have, since the beginning of the 21st century, gained greater influence in global political and economic affairs and, since 2006, also steadily developed and increased their political dialogue and cooperation. South Africa joining the BRICS political grouping in 2011 was matched by a strengthening of the BRICS dialogue. This was reflected in the broadening range of issues covered, the increasing level of specificity of the BRICS joint declarations and cooperation, and the institutionalization of BRICS cooperation in various policy fields, including the creation of the New Development Bank (NDB). Notwithstanding the increased interaction between the BRICS states on the various political, economic, and diplomatic levels, the countries differ considerably in their political, economic, military, and demographic weight and interests and in their regional and global aspirations. China particularly stands out among the BRICS due to its political and economic weight. There are sufficient reasons to question the significance and impact of the BRICS format. Still, the BRICS countries have found each other in their commitment to counter the “unjust” Western-dominated multilateral world in which they are generally underrepresented. The EU did not develop a “BRICS policy” as such, which is understandable given the major differences between the BRICS countries and the ambiguous nature of the BRICS format. To deal with the various emerging powers and complement its predominantly regional partnerships, the EU instead institutionalized and deepened the political and economic bilateral relations with each of the BRICS countries, including through the objective of establishing a bilateral “strategic partnership” with each of these countries. However, the analysis of the EU’s relationship with the BRICS countries indicates that the label “strategic partnerships” mainly served as a rhetorical façade which belied that the EU failed to turn these relationships into real strategic partnerships and to behave strategically toward the BRICS countries. Another challenge for the EU appears when analyzing the BRICS within the broader context of various emerging power constellations and multilateral frameworks, including variations of the BRICS format (such as BRICS Plus, BASIC, and IBSA), multilateral frameworks with one or more BRICS countries at their center (such as the SCO, EAEU, and BRI), and regional forums launched by China. Taken together, they point to an increasingly dense set of partially overlapping formal and informal networks on all political, diplomatic, and administrative levels, covering an ever-wider scope of policy areas and providing opportunities for debate, consultation, and coordination. Whereas most of these forums are in and of themselves not very influential, taken together they have an impact on the EU and its traditional view on multilateralism in several ways. Seen from this perspective, the BRICS and other multilateral forums pose major challenges for both European diplomats and European scholars. They will have to make considerable efforts to understand and engage with these various forums, which are manifestations of an increasingly influential and powerful non-Western world wherein the role of Europe is much more limited.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document