Why did Russia need the EAEU? Political scientist Stepan Grigoryan was originally convinced, but now he is more confident to announce: the priority for Russia was not the economic integration, but the political component. The evidence is the issue of Armenian driving licenses that have lately caused a lot of anxiety, the taxation of Armenian brandy in the Russian market, etc. The political scientist referred to these problems.
The politician reminds the arguments, which were brought by EAEU supporters in 2013: markets are familiar for us, it’s a positive environment for our business, there is no language problem, our products will endure competition, and most importantly, the problem of security. He also reminds the counter-arguments of the people who were not the supporters of that integration: if you do not have a common land border with any of the members of the integration structure, it is an obstacle. “Everyone knows that Upper Lars is not a reliable route. Over the last two years, both the government and the entrepreneurs have been complaining about the road, also that they are extorting money to allow you enter Russia. The Russian economy is in poor condition, corruption risks are high. That’s what the RF President says every day. And if you connect your economy with the economy of a country that is under sanctions, in crisis, what result do you wish?”.
Third, the most important problem, Stepan Grigoryan considers the rules of the game, which we already confront with and which are aimed at small and medium businesses. It’s about the restrictions being put into action imposed by the EAEU treaty. In particular, from July 1, only up to 5 kg phytosanitary products subject to quarantine control may be imported to the area of the Eurasian Economic Union without customs clearance. These include almost all types of fruits and vegetables.
According to the politician, Belarus and Kazakhstan still succeed in resisting Russia’s political aspirations. But in the case of Armenia, Russia succeeded in weakening our sovereignty elements: “And the more concessions you make, the more Russia demands”.
He sees three ways out: to stay in EAEU and continue to solve the problems through the proposed option, which he also considers a logical way. The second is Edmon Marukyan’s suggestion: to leave the EAEU: the politician is sure that Russia will take steps that will force our government to leave the structure. And he suggests the third option: to let it take its course. The EAEU will get the fate of the CIS in the future: de jure it exists, de facto it does not. The politician considers this the most realistic way, unless, of course, those small positive elements that exist in the EAEU start working.
Nelly GRIGORYAN
