On the Eurasian and the European ways of economic development for post-Soviet Georgia

The paper shows analyze the economic models of the well-known Eurasianist doctrine of Russian imperial thinking and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), which includes five countries – Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia. The economic foundation of the Eurasianism is not “market economy,” but rather “society with a market.” In the modern era of globalization, an alliance of countries on the basis of the Eurasianist economic model is impossible to establish. It is noteworthy that, given the governance regime of Belarus, the country’s economy comes closest to exhibiting the features of the economic model of Eurasianism (such as  “society with a market”), while more or less successful market reforms have already been carried out in Armenia and Kazakhstan in particular, and at the initial stage of the post-Soviet era in Kyrgyzstan and Russia. The newly established EAEU rests on a redistribution mechanism for oil and gas revenues, whereby Russia deliberately relinquishes a part of its due gains in favor of other member-states in order to not only induce economic interest to remain within the Union, but also to maintain and enhance its political influence via this economic output. Western economic sanctions imposed against Russia as a countermeasure to the invasion and annexation of Crimea and the military and political support provided to the breakaway regions of Eastern Ukraine, as well as the retaliatory anti-sanctions levied by Russia against the West, have demonstrated the fragility and instability of the EAEU. Given that the sanctions are only imposed against Russia and do not apply to other member counties of the EAEU, the latter have not joined the anti-sanctions as imposed by Russia. Therefore, the goods banned by Moscow may still enter the territory of Russia from other EAEU member countries.  This possibility is not ruled out by the common customs territory of the EAEU which includes all of its member countries.  This is primarily reflected by the fact that the EAEU member-states are not and cannot be economically congruent with Russia. A comparison of the EU with the EAEU does not favor the later, as, in contrast with the former organization, the EAEU is far more corrupt, with underdeveloped market institutions, and an unequivocal delay in technological development. Although attaining membership in the EAEU is much easier than that of the EU, the negative aspects described above ensure that this option holds no appeal for post-Soviet Georgia.