Neither in its economic nor in its quality institutional and political characteristics Eurasian Union can become a counterbalance for the EU.

By signing the Eurasian Economic Union treaty Alexander Lukashenko didn’t make any breakthrough, as EEU is rather a way to regress than progress for all its members.

In the interview with the EuroBelarus Information Service Uladzimir Matskevich, the head of the Board of the International Consortium “EuroBelarus”, analyzes what causes and consequences will entrance in a new geopolitical formation mean for Belarus.

— On May 29 Alexander Lukashenko signed the Eurasian Economic Union treaty. What made him sign the document which brings Belarus no benefit?

— Lukashenko was expecting unification of economic systems, which is fallacious and brings Belarus no benefit in the future. But Russia doesn’t need the unification either; that is why the 6 hundred pages of the treaty have only empty declarations on them. Lukashenko is competing with Nazarbaev about the title of the chief integrator at the post-Soviet area. This competition is very silly; it is Kremlin that has all trumps and resources, and both the “integrators” have no strength, no will and no ideas to seriously oppose Putin.

— What will Belarus get from EEU in spite of rosy expectations?

— It will get more empty promises. Lukashenko’s regime needs Russia and Russian market with its resources. The paradox of Lukashenko’s expectations is that the poorer Russia is the more popular will Belarusan goods be in Russia. And while poor countries use outdated and low-quality goods produced at the outdated Belarusan enterprises, Belarusan regime will be living.

— After the aggression in Ukraine Russia has become a social outcast in the world. Does it mean that Belarus and Kazakhstan, closest Russian allies, will bear responsibility for Russia’s actions?

— No, Belarus and Kazakhstan bear direct no moral or legal responsibility for Russian aggression. And sanctions against Russia are serving the interests of the Belarusan regime because of the paradox described above. Even now the regime gains much use from the conflict, and is hoping to have it in future. The dual nature of Lukashenko’s statements in this situation can to a large degree be explained by it.

— Belarus and Kazakhstan have closed the way to the West by meddling in the EEU. They have basically formed an anti-Western half-bloc under Russia’s command. Judging from the experience, all Kremlin’s integration projects started from economy only to develop into political unions in short order. Will EEU attempt to become a counterbalance for the EU?

— Eurasian Union is unable to become a counterbalance for the EU, neither in its economic nor in its quality institutional and political characteristics. The role and place of Russia in the world is seriously overestimated, and weak connections with Russia’s inconsistent satellites bring neither influence, nor authority. I believe that all three countries lose much by signing the union of losers and outsiders.

— Even before signing the Eurasian Economic Union treaty Belarus was at a state of Cold War with the EU. Should we expect that Belarus-Europe relations will worsen even more?

— I don’t think so. Belarus-EU relations are frozen at a rather low level; it is only if Belarus becomes a part of Russian aggression against Ukraine that it can become worse.

— Is it enough for Russia that Belarus and Kazakhstan are involved in Russia’s economic and political game? Or will Russia broaden its expansion on other countries of former Soviet Union? For example, Lithuania is afraid that Russia can enter the Baltic States on order to save its compatriots.

— If Putin isn’t stopped now, he will go further. Everyone is now afraid of that, which is right. For a long time Putin has been underestimated even by those who didn’t have any illusion about him. The apprehensions of Lithuanians and Latvians are well-founded. Putin should be stopped by all possible means.