EAEU — a soap bubble of integration?

Pavel Latushka, Deputy Head of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus, Representative of the Cabinet for the Transition of Power, Head of the National Anti-Crisis Management, Leader of the "Latushka Team and the Movement 'For Freedom'" faction within the 3rd convocation of the Coordination Council.

On June 26-27, Minsk is preparing to host the 4th Eurasian Economic Forum (EEF-2025). Representatives of the so-called "axis of evil" — Iran, Myanmar, Cuba, Nicaragua, autocracies of Central Asia, and some aligned countries — plan to attend.

The main declared theme is "Strategy of Eurasian Economic Integration: Results and Prospects." Usually, these platforms feature loud statements about "achievements" and "unity." But what really stands behind these declarations? Are there any real "results" for the people, or is it just another attempt to create an illusion of success?

It sounds like a dream: a union of countries where goods, money, and ideas flow freely, and millions enjoy an economic boom. But what if behind this bright facade hides a grim world of dictatorships, sanctions, and empty promises? The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), led by the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council (SEEC) and promoted through the Eurasian Economic Forum (EEF), was supposed to unite the post-Soviet space into a prosperous economic bloc. Instead, it became a hostage of repressive regimes in Russia and Belarus, where politics stifles business, and hopes for a better future drown in a swamp of bureaucracy and fear. Let’s analyze why this project, conceived as a bridge to prosperity, ended up on the verge of collapse.

We are often told about the grand plans of the Eurasian Economic Union — a common market, free movement of goods, services, capital, and labor. The SEEC and EEF are positioned as powerful mechanisms supposed to drive this integration forward. Sounds promising, doesn’t it? But if you look closer at what’s going on behind the scenes, especially now, it becomes clear: most of these promises are just pretty words. Instead of being a locomotive of economic growth, the EAEU increasingly turns into a project frozen in time, burdened with political ambitions and internal contradictions.

These ambitions are so great that sometimes political quarrels within the union overshadow any economic successes — which are already few. Take Armenia, for example, which, due to the inactivity of the CSTO (the military analogue of the EAEU, also under Russia’s aegis) during conflicts with Azerbaijan, has begun to openly express dissatisfaction and even flirt with the West. Armenia has repeatedly hinted at the possibility of leaving both unions, and Prime Minister Pashinyan did not shy away from publicly criticizing his "allies" for failing to meet their obligations. Regarding Lukashenko, he even stated that he would never again visit Belarus while Lukashenko is in power. Thus, he plans to participate in the forum via videoconference. Lukashenko, in turn, threatened to create communication problems for Pashinyan. "We will consider it. Maybe there will be no TV so that you can only speak remotely," he said at the EAEU summit in December 2024. "No problem," Pashinyan concluded the discussion. Thus, Armenia’s position is not just words — it is a blow to the image of the bloc’s unity.

Kazakhstan, meanwhile, though a close ally of Russia, constantly balances between Moscow and Beijing, striving to diversify its ties and actively developing alternative routes for oil and gas shipments bypassing Russian territory. President Tokayev — an experienced diplomat who knows Chinese and once worked in China — prefers friendship with China and outcasts like Lukashenko. Tokayev also actively develops cooperation with Turkey. Unlike Lukashenko, European leaders visit him, and he pragmatically approaches his country’s foreign policy, demonstrating true multi-vector diplomacy. He has repeatedly shown independence, for example, by refusing to recognize Russia’s "new territories," and by demonstratively supporting the Kazakh language both domestically and at international meetings. Remember when he started speaking Kazakh at one of the meetings with Putin, forcing the Russian delegation to wear headphones for translation.

Even Kyrgyzstan occasionally complains about barriers to its goods within the EAEU, pointing to "grey" schemes and protectionism from larger players. Notably, none of the EAEU countries allow the kind of humiliation before the Kremlin that Lukashenko regularly endures. The tensions within the union are not accidents but symptoms of a deep crisis of trust and lack of real equality.

The SEEC and EEF forums and summits increasingly resemble empty rituals where politicians demonstrate a fictitious unity while there are no real economic breakthroughs.

It is also telling how Central Asian countries, including EAEU members, are actively pivoting towards other influential players. For example, on June 17, 2025, the "China – Central Asia" summit took place in Astana in the "5+1" format. This was not just a meeting but a clear signal: the region’s countries — Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan — see China as a key partner. For them, it is not only a way to strengthen trade and economic ties and attract investments in infrastructure, transport, and energy but also an opportunity to become a real bridge between East and West. This multi-vector aspiration is nothing but an active attempt to break free from Russia’s dominant influence, especially given Moscow’s geopolitical isolation and aggressive foreign policy. Central Asia is seeking more reliable and profitable development paths, and Beijing offers such prospects, causing tangible concern in the Kremlin, which is losing its traditional foothold of influence.

Let’s be honest: the EAEU is, first and foremost, a project tightly controlled by Moscow. With more than 80% of the union’s GDP, Russia sets the rules of the game. Although other countries like Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, and Armenia formally have a say, in practice their interests often take a back seat. All important decisions are made to favor the Kremlin, and the Eurasian Economic Commission, which should be an independent executive body, essentially remains under Moscow’s political influence. Internal disputes and disagreements are not resolved by clear rules but by manual management, often under Russia’s guidance, killing transparency and fairness. There is no strong, independent arbitration court that could judge fairly.

The biggest blow to the EAEU was dealt by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The war not only undermined Russia’s trust on the global stage but also cast a shadow over the entire EAEU, now seen as a club of authoritarian states. Central Asian countries, fearing Western sanctions, actively distance themselves from Moscow. This "friendship" within the union costs them dearly: many companies fear working with EAEU partners due to reputational risks. The common economy is stalling because of anti-Russian sanctions — Russia, the main player, has lost access to technologies, investments, and markets. Contrary to all declarations, mutual trade within the union is shrinking because businesses seek new, safer routes.

Each member state pulls the blanket over itself. Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan actively seek new trading partners in China and South Asia. Belarus, on the contrary, sinks deeper into dependence on Russia. Armenia is mired in its own geopolitical problems. Everyone has their own interests, and there is no common development strategy. Instead of diversifying economies and fostering innovation, the EAEU remains a raw-material appendage, fully dependent on global prices for oil, gas, and metals. SEEC and EEF forums increasingly resemble empty rituals where politicians show fake unity, but there are no real economic breakthroughs.

As of mid-2025, the EAEU’s prospects look bleak. Instead of the declared convergence, the economies of member states are increasingly diverging. The union does not attract new members; on the contrary, they try to stay away from geopolitical risks. Central Asian countries actively build alternative transport corridors bypassing Russia, confirming their lack of faith in the EAEU’s future.

In essence, today the EAEU is not a tool of deep economic integration but rather a mechanism to mitigate the consequences of Russia’s isolation and maintain its influence in the region. This burdens other participants and prevents their development.

Imagine for a second: if this union were built not on dictatorship and aggression — as is the case with Russian and Belarusian regimes — but on principles of democracy, transparency, mutual respect, and rule of law. If economies aimed at real integration, not just fulfilling the political ambitions of one country. If the EAEU were a union of free and equal partners, respecting human rights and international law. In that case, it could really become an interesting and mutually beneficial platform for economic cooperation, bringing prosperity to all its members and contributing to regional stability. But for now, it is just a distant dream.

---