Why the CIS has failed to become the new post-Soviet geopolitical reality.

       Is the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) an opportunity or a burden for the post-Soviet space? Can we speak about a new geopolitical reality or a renewed push for integration in the region? Or is the CIS no more than a club of seniors, whose only historic achievement was to lessen the blow caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union?

       These kinds of questions usually arise after CIS summits. And the anniversary summit in Dushanbe was no exception. Three presidents were absent as usual, and tensions between Russia and Ukraine boiled over into a gas dispute, supporting the arguments of those who have been against the CIS since its inception.

       At the same time we must not forget that EU summits, which are often cited as a counter example, are the scene of serious political battles. The CIS could become a functional venue, but for the time being it is giving more grounds for criticism than hope, which is only natural.

       In the past 20 years, the CIS has not been very active and has failed to live up to expectations. Part of the problem is that the CIS was formed in the process of the Soviet Union’s disintegration and did not pursue any strategic goals. Its formation was a good thing because the British Empire, for one, had to sustain far bigger losses during its collapse than the Soviet Union, while personal ambitions (which are at odds with the idea of unity) left no room for strategic thinking. Many Russian experts still consider the CIS a tool for preserving influence. Moscow was so busy fighting phantom pains that it could not determine its own attitude to the CIS – is it a buffer zone, an instigator of new revisionist attitudes or a new platform for the region’s integration?

       But the concept of the CIS as a potential vehicle for integration was unlikely to find support even if Moscow had given up its imperial mentality faster. The newly independent ex-Soviet countries are still defining their sovereignty in opposition to Russia. The fact that the post-Soviet space (minus the Baltic republics) is strongly interlinked – even though the political, economic and cultural differences between its western part, the South Caucasus and Central Asia are more pronounced than in the EU – does not strengthen the need for joint thinking. Moreover, the powers and organizations (the United States, China, Iran, the EU and NATO) interested in the Eurasian space are looking at the CIS with concern, being wary of any form of post-Soviet integration.

       Indeed, Russian supremacy is required for any viable integration, but there is still resistance to this idea. The advanced West still regards Russia as its rival, while acknowledging that its excessive weakening would create a real threat to the region. The fact that serious forces in Russia still feel alienated from Europe does not help overcome Cold War stereotypes.

       The fears about Moscow are groundless for two reasons – Russia’s economy is weak and Moscow has changed its political course. Even a strong Russia would be unable to take responsibility for the CIS, and this is one of the most serious obstacles to real integration in the region. Moreover, the majority of CIS countries, albeit to varying degrees, are looking at Europe if not the EU as a model to follow. Moscow should drive the region’s modernization and become an attractive example. Only in this case will it be able to breathe new life into the organization.

       Moscow should give priority to the relations with the former Soviet republics, realizing that CIS countries are very sensitive in this regard. It would be even better if they felt Moscow’s support in economic and cultural matters. It could help overcome anti-Russian attitudes if it used its leading role in the region’s integration to promote the idea of a common Eurasian economic space from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In this context, the formation of the Customs Union (CU) and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) is a progressive move. The external circumstances are favorable for this integration platform: the EU is obsessed with its internal problems and has lost focus on Eastern partnership; U.S. influence is waning, as the country has many concerns of its own; whereas China looms as an ominous new power that has the potential to influence the region.

       The post-Soviet space needs the CIS, or rather a modern integration platform. What’s more, this need is growing. The need is not very pronounced now, but it still helps overcome disunity on a practical plane and gradually promotes necessary cooperation. Moreover, the CIS is a forum for political dialogue in a region that is ridden with problems and tensions. The CIS has failed to become an integration platform despite the need for one because it has not yet learned the lessons of the past two decades.

       Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.