The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, has stated that “Eurasia needs a continent-wide structure akin to the African Union or the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC)” in interviews this week. Bearing in mind that Western Europe already has the European Union and the Organisation for Security & Defence in Europe (OSCD), his comments have been ignored in the West, although they have special relevance in the concept of a wider Eurasian structure that encompasses the West as an integral part of the Eurasian landmass – including Russia.  

Lavrov is in fact referring to the Greater Eurasian Partnership (GEP). The idea was first expressed at the highest level by Russian President Vladimir Putin during the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in June 2016, replacing the outdated Greater Europe plan (from Lisbon to Vladivostok) originally conceived in Napoleonic times.

From Russia’s perspective, the GEP could provide to Eurasia a network of free trade zones, inter-regional trade and economic partnerships, settlements in national currencies & independent payment systems, the development of Eurasian transport corridors, a foundation for indivisible security on the continent, territorial integrity, economic sovereignty and cultural and social protection for member states, and a common platform to settle disputes and prevent conflicts. This would encompass all of Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and extend into China as well as potentially other parts of Asia.

While Lavrov may have a valid point in Eurasian interconnectivity, at Russia’s Pivot To Asia we see the situation as rather more complex and containing practical issues as follows:

1. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation already exists as a Eurasian security partnership – except for Western Europe, who views it as a threat. It has already been described as a ‘rogue NATO.’

2. The Commonwealth of Independent States and Eurasian Economic Union are the nearest Eurasian institutions in acting as the EU does in trade bloc terms, and are similar, although the EAEU is rapidly expanding its free trade agreements. However, EU members cannot also be members of the EAEU or CIS, suggesting a middle ground would need to be developed somehow for any integration with the EU to occur.

3. BRICS is also important in Eurasia, as are China’s BRI countries. However, the EU also sees these as a threat.

4. The INSTC and other regional supply chains are developing across Eurasia and already making ‘trade motorways’ across the region – the INSTC being an integral part of this. However, there is one major missing part. That is the proposed ‘Trans-Afghan Railway’ which would link Central Asia to South Asian ports. It is important that this bottleneck be somehow resolved with the Taliban and the required financing.  

5. There have been some discussions about linking together the SCO, CIS, EAEU, BRICS and BRI, however this is a massive undertaking, and will take time. What is interesting is that these component parts exist. Can they be united?

6. Western Europe isn’t interested. They want to align with North America. Trumps statements about Canada and Greenland are instead representative of current European political views that the EU and UK would be better off moving West, rather than East. The attitudes of Western Europe remain a significant hinderance to any proposed ‘Greater Eurasia’. 

7. The rise of the Global South. Africa is already well on the way to political, trade and investment integration with the New East (Russia, China and India) – while the previous European colonial powers are withdrawing. A similar situation is happening in Latin America.

8. North America and Western Europe are becoming more aligned, while Russia, China and India are inheriting much of the rest. The latter is the more difficult to achieve, as infrastructure needs to be developed, and security in what are some volatile regions enhanced. However, this is where the future growth is.

9. The question to ask really is not so much about ‘Eurasia’ – it is where the future dynamics are. While the United States will preserve its status, it will be at the expense of Western Europe. Or put another way, the US will slowly cannibalize the EU: America is eating its way to growth.

10. Russia meanwhile is now part of the New Asia/Global South – where the dynamism is. Russia is developing its way towards growth. And that is where the differences in opinion between Western Europe and the rest of Eurasia are.

Summary

We are not bullish on the prospects of any Western European involvement in a future Great Eurasian Partnership at all. We also suspect that Sergey Lavrov and Vladimir Putin are well aware of the political reasons why: Western Europe has become politically aligned – and heavily influenced – by decisions made in Washington rather than in Europe itself. That has led, and is continuing to lead, to a lack of European sovereignty and any chance of becoming part of any Greater Eurasian Partnership.   

What is interesting is that this was always likely to result in a division between Western Europe and Russia, what has happened since 2022 merely seeks to underline the fact that this has become very real. Europe isn’t just withdrawing from Eurasia; it has actively sought protectionism in the form of sanctions and tariff hikes to cast itself adrift from the very mainland body it is geo-physically attached to. We cannot see this ending well for Western Europe. It does not have the resources to support itself and will become dependent instead on more expensive United States commodities. “Make America Great Again” will be at Europe’s expense. 

Russia, on the other hand, has long had aspirations east, dating back to Imperial times. It is now part of the Russian culture and to some extent, an increasing part of Russian aspirations. New Asia and the Global South is where growth is expected to be for the rest of this century, both in terms of available human resources as well as wealth creation. It is also where much of the world’s energy resources, minerals and natural resources in agriculture, timber and even water are located.

For us, we see this division as already having occurred. The only question remaining about Eurasia is also currently being debated – which of the currently Western European members will change sides? These will likely include Hungary and Slovakia, while Romania is also leaning towards better ties with Moscow even as its leadership continues to deny what appears reality. The United States, in whatever guise it morphs into with the mooted absorption of Canada and Greenland, appears to have an assured future as it feeds on Western Europe. Russia will also be fine as it has cast its net far and wide. The great shame about the Greater Eurasian Partnership however, and its greatest loss, is Western Europe. In 200 years’, time, political analysts will examine the decision making and question why on earth the world’s second largest trade bloc decided to align itself with a completely different continent over 3,500km away across one of the planets largest oceans. It will make as much sense then as it does now.

Further Reading

The Upcoming European Union’s Presidencies To 2030: Reshaping Relations With Russia?