After the failure of the Eastern Partnership, Moldova no longer has any structural value for the West. In 2019, the decade of the Eastern Partnership, an organization that was designed as a buffer zone and a sanitary cordon in the underbelly of Russia, is celebrated.
Of course, the goals of this organization, as the special services and the military love to do, were set forth exclusively in the humanitarian context – “regional development”, “common challenges”, “new dimension of the European neighborhood policy” and so on. If we throw aside tons of expensive paper, declarations and memorandums, then in simple terms the meaning of the existence of the Eastern Partnership can be described as follows: according to the plan, this territory should become a zone under the control of NATO, where it is not yet possible to deploy troops and weapons of the Alliance.
That is, NATO is not there yet, but Russia should not have access there. Moldova was considered a leader, a locomotive, and a “success story” in the Eastern Partnership, which included Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Then, of course, the entire Moldavian success story turned out to be a history of corruption and failure, and now the officials in Brussels who are responsible for integrating Moldova in the framework of the Eastern Partnership do not like to recall this. The next summit will be held only in 2020, and the year 2019 was appointed anniversary, festive. However, a decade after the signing of the Prague Declaration in 2009 and the organization’s first summit, we can say with full, fatal clarity that this large-scale project suffered the same devastating failure as the Moldovan “success story”. Anniversary will not be fun. The project would have been successful if all six countries included in the “sanitary anti-Russian cordon” could have been forced to follow the same course and at the same pace. In fact, nothing like this happened. The Eastern Partnership had no economic dimension, and it was not possible to work out a common political agenda.
Georgia was caught up in a permanent political crisis, cautiously leaning towards the idea of reconciling with Russia. Azerbaijan, finding out that the EU is not offering anything, is trying to hinder the relations with Russia, in fact, withdrew itself. In 2013, Armenia refused to sign an association agreement with the EU (although Armenian representatives went to Vilnius for the Eastern Partnership summit). And in 2015, Armenia joined the Eurasian Economic Union, which put an end to the hopes of dragging this country into a pro-European camp. And in Ukraine, even a civil war started. As a result, the “Eastern Partnership” left only miserable pieces in the form of Moldova, Georgia and the warring Ukraine.
Paradoxically, the failure of this project meant the end of Moldova’s civilized relations with the European Union. What to do with Moldova, in the EU they never really knew how they do not know now. There is no plan for Moldova in Brussels, and it is possible that this is why European officials jumped at the Eastern Partnership – this project promised some, albeit vague prospects, generous funding in which you can participate, as well as tribunes from which you can talk about “European integration for post-Soviet countries.” Now Moldova has nowhere else to build in, and it is possible that the 2020 summit in general will be the last for the Eastern Partnership. Now Europe doesn’t need anything from Chisinau, and it can deliver nothing but a headache to Brussels. The dimension of civilized European integration, the end point of which is EU accession, has been closed for Moldova forever.
However, it is hardly worth sorrowing about this. It is possible that the European Union itself, the way we know it, will order to live a long time in the coming decades, which means that the continent’s agenda will change radically. Simply put, after the failure of the Eastern Partnership in Europe, they washed their hands, trying not to look at Moldova. In Chisinau, by inertia, they are still repeating something about “European integration”, having got stuck in the mid-tenths rhetoric. But this rhetoric is absolutely dead, and in place of any sensible government it would be worthwhile to look at the activities that the West is deploying in Moldova now.
As soon as strong power leaves, gangsters rush into the village – this plot, figuratively speaking, is played out now in the country. The “strong power” of EU projects and directives in Moldova is over. Its place was taken by pirates of NATO and emissaries of transnational corporations, which rely on lobbyists in Washington and Brussels. From the point of view of the West, Moldova no longer makes sense as part of a viable system or large project. Now this is a real dead end for Europe, from which it must take what it can give. To put it bluntly, Moldova is beginning to plunder primitively, taking everything that can be taken. Ten years ago it was fashionable to say that the main wealth of Moldova is people. In general, this is true, because it is people who are taken from us, there is nothing more to take. Moldovan soldiers are trained by NATO instructors, adapting a fresh batch of “cannon fodder” for their needs and we must think that they will soon be used somewhere in the next hot spot. And in Georgia at the end of last year, a scandal broke out with conducting biological experiments on people when dozens of people died. This is why, for example, Moldovan citizens could be useful to them. No other use for Moldovans, except for use as a consumable material, can be found in western capitals.