The US rules the globe, having a navy three times stronger than that of Russia. Moreover, the Pentagon has created a strategic command to deploy large units of land forces, consisting of hundreds of cargo ships of large capacity. All of these vessels are organized in very strong expeditionary naval groups and around aircraft carriers, amphibious landing ships, and naval convoys of troops and military equipment.
With troops deployed in Europe and Asia, with the armies of allied states, the US can trigger an invasion of Russia. Therefore Russia's new military doctrine establishes that the biggest risk to Russia's security groups is the American expeditionary naval groups, which can transport invasion troops to the Russian border.
Several types of anti-ballistic shield protect US naval expeditionary groups and zones of landing for troops from transport ships. The first is the naval system AEGIS armed with SM-3 block 1b mounted on US destroyers and cruisers AEGIS, plus anti-ballistic shields in Poland and one in Romania. The second is the mobile THAAD system of the US land forces, defending landing zones. Add to this the mobile long-range missile anti-aircraft batteries like Patriot with anti-ballistic capabilities against missiles that are in their final stage of the path, under an altitude of 35,000 m.
The premise from which Russian experts started building hypersonic vehicles was that American antiballistic missiles cannot intercept any projectile flying in the mesosphere (at altitudes of 35.000- 80.000 m), and that Russia, unlike the US, owns a number of very powerful rocket engines. For example, the Pentagon and NASA cannot send satellites into orbit if Russia does not deliver the RD-180 rocket engines. Russia is on the verge of creating, starting in 2018, the surest antidote to this vulnerability by means of a hypersonic battle. Aerial vehicles are classified according to the airspeed as follows: subsonic (below the speed of 1,220 km/h, - Mach 1) supersonic (speeds between Mach 1 and Mach 5 - up to 6000 km/h), and hypersonic (with speeds between Mach 5 and Mach 10 – up to 12,000 km/h).
Russian hypersonic weapons
The main Russian hypersonic weapon are derived from space glider Yu-71 (Project 4202), which flew during tests at a speed of 6000-11200 km/h over a distance of 5,500 km at a cruising altitude below 80,000 m, receiving repeated pulses from a rocket engine to climb, execute maneuvers and cornering trajectory. It is estimated that the glider is armed with warheads that are spatially independent, with autonomous guidance systems similar to the air-ground missiles Kh-29 L/T and T Kh-25 (which provides a probable deviation of 2-6 m). Although it may take nuclear warheads, the space glider will be armed with conventional warheads and will be powered by a rocket launched normally from nuclear-powered Russian submarines.
Another variant of the hypersonic weapon derived from the Yu-71 would be those launched from the Russian military transport aircraft Il-76MD-90A (II-476). Since 50% of the missile’s fuel is spent solely on take off and rising though the layers of extremely dense atmosphere of up to 10,000 m, mass launcher and glider space represents 50% of the rocket carrier used to launch from nuclear-powered submarines.
The second type of weapon different from hypersonic spatial glider is the Zirkon 3M22 missile, which is launched from maritime patrol aircraft. Zirkon has a speed of Mach 6.2 (6500 km/h) at a cruising altitude of 30,000 m and a kinetic energy at impact with the target 50 times higher than existing air-ship and ship-to ship missiles.
Hypersonic concept for a war
The new Russian military doctrine states that an attack on the American invasion fleet is to be executed in three waves, three alignments, thus preventing American expeditionary naval groups from positioning themselves near the Russian coast of the Baltic Sea. The first wave of hypersonic weapons, consisting of space gliders arranged on Russian nuclear-powered submarines under immersion in the middle of the Atlantic, starts fighting US naval expeditionary groups as they start crossing the Atlantic to Europe. The American naval groups need 7-8 days to cross the Atlantic; the plane Il-76MD-90A has a maximum flight distance of 6300 km and can be powered in the air, reaching the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in a few hours.
If the first wave does not destroy the targets, the second wave of hypersonic weapons will be launched on the US naval groups when they are located 1,000 km from the eastern shore of the Atlantic Ocean. The attack will be launched from the Russian submarines in the Barents Sea or Plesesk base of strategic missiles, located near the Arctic Circle and the White Sea.
The third wave of hypersonic attack will be executed by missiles 3M22 Zirkon launched on American naval groups when they would be in the Skagerrak strait (crossing the North Sea to the Baltic Sea), on the assumption that NATO is attacking Russia through the Baltics. If the American expeditionary naval group head to the Black Sea, it will be hit by the third wave of hypersonic weapons in the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits.
Thus, Poland, the Baltic States, and Romania – all NATO countries that use highly aggressive language and actions against Russia - should think better before triggering a military incident with Russia, since these countries rely only on military aid over the Atlantic Ocean, which might never come.
Russia Day is perhaps one of the most contradictory and ambiguous dates in our country. If, for example, National Unity Day has a positive, albeit distant point, then June 12th is not so clear. The declaration of Russia’s independence was perceived by the majority of citizens of the then Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic not only as a tragedy, but also as an act of betrayal as a result of which 25 million people were suddenly deprived of their Homeland. And now, Russians are still the largest divided people in history.
In the new Russia that celebrated “independence,” chaos and degradation, and the literal extinction of the population reigned. The question became all the more urgent: from what has our country become independent? From honor, conscience, and common sense? It is clear that the post-Soviet authorities had to celebrate a certain milestone, change of times, or date of great transition. So the Day of Russia’s Independence became a holiday from the “top-down.” It remained such to this or that extent for subsequent years.
In 2002, the first important change took place. Independence Day was renamed Russia Day. This “independence” had become far too suspicious for the people. For a long time already, there had been no meaning to this June 12th, a day made into a date supposed to be celebrated as a holiday by everybody. It would seem that the title is clear: Russia Day is a day on which one needs to be “especially proud of their country.” But for a long time, starting with the ’90’s up to the middle of the first decade of the 2000’s, there were no causes for such pride. If something appeared in the media, then it was instantly trampled and soiled by the Westernizers. Only recently have they stopped, finally and irrevocably, to be “teachers of the people” and “the nation’s conscience.”
What is Russia Day? In theory, it should be a Rubicon date, not one of the dismantlement and collapse of the country, but of its rebirth “in strength and glory” - the day when all of us can clearly articulate that we are proud of our country, and especially why we are proud. Fortunately, in recent years there have been more causes for pride. “Yuri, we’ve corrected it.”
This doesn’t mean that Russia Day has become a general holiday for everyone. The memory of the shame of the 1990’s is still fresh. But in recent years, we can see that there is a different semantic content. And most importantly, it is coming from the people, and now “top-down” from our state officialdom.
The fully charged meaning of Russia Day will only reveal itself in the future, which turns it into a “date for the future.” But this entirely depends on us, the citizens of Russia. The more real reasons for pride there are, the more achievements and breakthroughs there will be, and the more festive and celebrated will be the date of June 12th.
Proposals have been voiced that Russia Day should be change to a different date, one not associated with the painful memories of June 12th. But such a move will be perceived as done by those who want Russians to repent for their past, as a concession. In regards to May 9th, our liberal public also says that it is not a holiday, but a day of mourning for four years of bloody war and millions of deaths. But we aren’t even thinking about changing Victory Day to another date. Don’t Russians already know that this was a bloody war with millions of death? We more than understand this. That war affected almost ever family, and the millions-strong Immortal Regiment is proof of this. But on May 9th, the war ended, so we celebrate triumph and remember the blood, pain, and broken families.
The same should be considered in regards to Russia Day. As Independence Day, it heralded an era of collapse and destruction which lasted 10 long and terrible years with millions dead from famine, banditry, and hopelessness. This is also a memory which should never be abandoned, whose mistakes should never be repeated, whose memory should prevent any forces from allowing another collapse of the country. This is a very important memory.
But Russia Day, in addition to this bitter meaning, should be imbued with another meaning - with the idea of rebirth with all of Russia’s former greatness. And this is happening before our very eyes.
By way of its symbolism, Russia Day can become quite a Christian one just as how the Cross of Christ, the shameful instrument of the most shameful form of execution in the Roman Empire, became a symbol of Honor and Resurrection. So can Russia Day, out of shame and defeat, become a day of pride and victory in the most paradoxical, unimaginable and wonderful way.
But, after all, in Russia, astonishment is a kind of routine. Our ancestors performed miracles in 1941-1945 and earlier, throughout the entire history of our country.
We are their descendants. Our genetics are predisposed to making “ordinary miracles” when life itself demands such.
This is why there is the opinion that such a miracle is gradually, year by year, happening now and will finally happen with Russia Day. This day will no longer be a reminder of the “shameful cross,” but a symbol of striving for Life and Eternity for our entire Homeland.
Such an understanding of the holiday has only just begun to find meaningful contours, and their appearance in the future depends on us alone - on the quiet, modest heroism of each of us. Every day, and not only on June 12th.
Mihail Kasyanov tows the official US policy line, in his quest to win the next election.
Kasyanov is known in Russia as "Misha 2%" due to corruption scandals during his work at the Ministry of Finance in the 1990s. Legend has it he would always ask for 2% of whatever venture he was asked to push-through.
His party, PARNAS, is backed by the US state department and ironically focuses on "exposing" the corruption of the Putin government.
Should Kasyanov come to power, he reiterates that he will;
1) Return Crimea;
2) Leave the people of Donbass to their fate at the hands of the Ukrainian army;
3) Bend over in doggy-style position
Mr Kasyanov is a regular on CNN as the face of "Russian opposition" rubbishing the government at hand, while living large on US taxpayer dollar in Europe.
According to participants, it was a reaction to the thwarted reception at the Consulate General of Russia in Odessa by Ukrainian nationalists.
A civil correspondent from "Ridus" reported that about two hundred people gathered at the Ukrainian Embassy to express their dissatisfaction. The action was purely peaceful, people chanting slogans like "fascism will not pass", holding banners in their hands. On Twitter, meanwhile, there were allegations that the Embassy was pelted with eggs.
The project "60sec" published, in a traditional minute, a YouTube video about the campaign:
As a reminder, earlier in the afternoon, about fifty members of the "Azov" battalion and "Right Sector" blocked the entrance to the Consulate General of Russia in Odessa, disrupting the reception in honour of the Day of Russia. The Consulate was pelted with eggs and potatoes, and people who came to the reception were forced to kneel down and shout that they are Ukraine. According to the "ataman of the Gaydamak black sea group" Sergey Gusalyuk, the participants wanted "to at least identify supporters of the "aggressor country".
Around May 20th, the so-called “Syrian Democratic Forces”, the main component of which are Kurdish militias, undertook a rather serious attempt to advance on the Syrian capital of ISIS, Raqqa. They undertook this action not by themselves but apparently on the initiative of the United States. Before the beginning of the offensive, the four-star general and head of the Central Command of the US Armed Forces (CENTCOM), Joseph Leonard Votel, visited Northern Syria.
Syria and Russia vs. the Kurds and the US
It is difficult to believe, and it indeed smacks of surrealism, that the Syrian Democratic Forces include Kurdish brigades, i.e., the natural enemies of the US’ NATO ally, Turkey, and the sworn allies of the US’ natural enemy, Assad. Nevertheless, they are supported by approximately 250 American “military advisors/marines” (apparently these are US special operation forces), around 20 American combat aircraft, and up to a thousand PMSC mercenaries from NATO countries.
According to Washington’s official position, badge-wearing Americans are not participating in combat operations. But according to media reports, they are in fact personally fighting in the most difficult zones and are directing the targeting of US aircraft. The Yankee’s activity is confirmed by the fact that they have successfully spread scandalous photo and video materials in which they can be seen wearing the stripes of the Kurdish People’s Self-Defense Forces who make up the backbone of the SDF.
Such open support on the part of the Americans for Syrian Kurds has caused a painful reaction on the part of Ankara, which considers the Kurdish People’s Self-Defense Forces to be a terrorist organization. The Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mevlut Cavusoglu, has accused the US of double standards and advised them to wear the badges of the Islamic State. He said:
“It is unacceptable that our allies have worn the chevrons of the Kurdish People’s Self-Defense Forces. We have responded to this by declaring that it is unacceptable. These are double standards and manifestations of duplicity. We advise them to wear the chevrons of the ‘Islamic State’, ‘Jebat al-Nusra’ and ‘Al-Qaeda’ when traveling to other regions of Syria. And when they go to Africa, let them wear the stripes of Boko Haram.”
US officials apologized without any special servility, but have promised to ban “fraternal badge-wearing” with Kurds.
However, the fact remains that the Americans are formally coordinating Kurdish operations against the Islamic State, which has received practically overt support from the US-allied Persian Gulf monarchies and allied Turkey, and which, according to number of analysts, itself emerged and expanded not without Washington's help.
In this situation, Syrian-Russian-Iranian forces are acting at the same time as allies and rivals of the Kurdish-American alliance, and began to advance towards Raqqa a few days after the SDF did.
Experts have begun to predict who will reach the ISIS capital first, who will hoist his flag of victory first, and whether or not there will be a direct confrontation between the American special forces accompanying the Kurds and the legal Syrian government aided by Russian troops. The Financial Times anxiously suggested that “the battle for Raqqa risks pitting Russian and US forces against each other” and pondered whether it would be possible to avoid such an undesirable collision. The hope is that American and Russian forces have already worked out cooperation.
It is by all means possible to understand the passions and attention of journalists. Capturing ISIS’ capital would be a grand media victory even more significant than the liberation of Palmyra. And Palmyra, in addition to its world fame for its cultural heritage, is extremely important infrastructurally as the “central intersection” of the Syrian desert.
In addition to its military value as the seizure of one of ISIS strongholds, the capture of is Raqqa is also ideologically important. A successful storm of the city would show that the “Caliphate” can’t even keep what it has proclaimed to be its own home.
If the Syrians, Russians, and Iranians achieve this, then they will show the whole world that they are the main fighters against terrorism and are fundamentally in control of the situation in the country. If the Americans and Kurds get ahead of them, then, firstly, the success at Palmyra will pale in comparison and, secondly, Raqqa, with its enormous slice of North-Eastern Syria, could be carved into a Kurdish national formation (whether federated or independent).
The US absolutely does not want to see Assad’s army in Raqqa. The State Department Spokesman, Mark Toner, directly stated:
“I do not have full information about the progress of the battle for Raqqa. If the city were to be liberated, then we would evaluate this like the liberation of Palmyra. It would be better than the presence of ISIS terrorists, but not much better.”
How much further to Raqqa? The positions of each side
For now, the possibility of clashes between Russian and US troops is unrealistic. The SDF have formally accumulated around 30 - 50,000 fighters for the offensiveaccording to different reports. In reality, however, only 4-5,000 of them have been deployed towards Raqqa and are mostly bogged down in positional battles for a few small villages. Although the Kurdish positions were originally 30-45 kilometers from Raqqa, they have essentially failed to advance. On the other hand, the SDF has built up a fairly successful offensive on the city of Manbij in the direction of Aleppo.
Syrian government forces are successfully advancing in the direction of the city of Tabqa located 40 kilometers from Raqqa. According to some reports, they were able to advance up to 30-35 kilometers in the first few days. According to the latest information, the frontline units of the Syrian Army are positioned 18 kilometers from Tabqa. On the map below, the deployment of the Syrian Army (the yellow at the bottom) and Kurdish brigades (yellow at the top) can be seen in reference to the city of Raqqa located on the Euphrates river midway between these forces.
Along the Homs-Raqqa highway are advancing Desert Falcon brigades, 18 tank divisions, 4 mechanized divisions, a regiment from Golan and the marine corps of Syria, with a total personnel of around 4,500 people. The road before them is being “cleared” by Russian attack helicopters. In addition to old Soviet tanks and conventional machine-gun-mounted trucks, a T-90 and the newest “Tiger” combat vehicle are taking part in the offensive. Media reports have said that Russian Spetsnaz are also operating on the ground with the Syrians.
Using long-range communications, ISIS has tried to strike their flanks and cut off the group from the main force, but this has failed. Despite the fact that the terrorists have reported their move to the highway, this in fact turned out to be a lie - in reality, they moved forward a little, but were soon defeated and retreated.
Why is their no advance on Tabqa? Besides the fact that this is the “gateway” to Raqqa, there is also a hydroelectric power station and airfield, the control of which would untie the hands of Russian air forces. At the present moment, the home base of our aircraft is a bit distant from Raqqa, which adversely affects the capabilities of our airmen.
Taking Tabqa would give the Syrians a significant advantage in the offensive on Raqqa.
But then again, why are the Americans and the Kurds not throwing all of their forces towards Raqqa? It’s possible that the reason behind this is that they have other goals, namely, the necessity of seizing the above-mentioned town of Manbij. This city is one of the key points on the road between Aleppo and Raqqa. In addition, it is simultaneously a bridge between Syrian Islamic terrorists operating in the area and Turkey, as well as the barrier separating Kurdish enclaves. The latter deserves a more detailed discussion in order to understand the new plan of the US.
Kurdistan as a tool for dividing Syria
In March 2016, Kurdish “cantons” announced the creation of a federal entity called Rojava in Northern Syria. The key role in this process was played by the “Democratic Union” which, according to statements by the Turks, is linked to the Kurdistan Workers Party professing a national-Marxist ideology. The Democratic Union is not so much striving for independence from Syria as it is demanding autonomy from Bashar al-Assad. Moreover, this union plays a key role in the operations of the Kurdish self-defense brigades. In addition to the DU, there also exists the anti-Assad, more right-wing Kurdish National Council which insists that the “Democratic Union” is incapable of defending Kurdish interests.
Kurdish autonomy already de-facto exists, but de jure it is not recognized by Syria or neighboring countries. Assad has reacted to any talks on the autonomy of this or that region quite painfully, which has added fuel to the fire and strengthened the hitherto not-too-powerful Kurdish National Council. This is forcing the Democratic Union to engage in operations in order to restore its credibility. The Americans are cleverly playing with these contradictions and have hinted that they will protect the Kurds while trying to bring the Democratic Union closer to them by using the fact that it is located between Damascus and Ankara, i.e., between the hammer and the anvil.
When they started the revolutionary adventure in Damascus, the US needed all of Syria as a key transport hub of the Middle East. Assad was a key obstacle preventing American allies in the Persian Gulf from laying down pipelines through Syria running to Europe. Following the intervention of the Russian airforce, they were no longer capable of taking the whole of Syria. After all, how can they gain access to the sea in Latakia now that there’s a Russian base there?
It is for this reason that the US has left its bet on Kurdistan, and moreover a Syrian-Iraqi-Turkish one, since access to the sea can now only be achieved via Turkey. The key to the process of this creation is Manbij, the capture of which would allow them to begin to physically unite the Kurdish “cantons” and access the “gate” to Turkey.
It’s clear that the Turks have figured some of this out and are not too happy about what’s happening, but who is asking them anyway? For the Persian Gulf Monarchies, it would of course be better to control this pipeline corridor directly through their spiritually dear and financed ISIS. But if the Caliphate in Syria fails, then in the worst case scenario there will still be the American-Kurdish variant.
Moscow and Damascus’ task is sufficiently difficult. First of all, they need to take Raqqa, which will be far from simple. Secondly, they have to stabilize the situation in the Aleppo area and thereby shuffle the Turks’ and Americans’ cards. Thirdly, and this depends 99% on Assad, they need to resume talks with the Kurds and persuade them to return to a normal existence in the framework of a unitary Syrian state, even a federal one. Completing this task would be an almost complete victory for Russia and Assad. The rest will just be matter of technique.
Seville 1936
Similarities between the aspirations of the “allies” for Raqqa and 1945 undoubtedly exist. In both cases, Moscow and Washington competed for influence on a territory liberated from an aggressor. In both cases, the position of Moscow was more altruistic and constructive, while Washington’s was cynical. Then, just as now, the US fought with one hand while supporting the aggressor with the other. Just as how US special services cooperated with the Nazis, so do they now have close contacts with the terrorists.
But the role of the battle for Raqqa in 2016 is inferior in importance to the role of the battle for Berlin in 1945. Rather, it is a prelude comparable in significance to the Spanish Civil War when each side tested its strength and tested new tactics and new kinds of weapons. The main battle will - God forbid that it comes to this - take place in the European and Far Eastern theaters - which is fine, if only it would be a political-economic and informational one.
The Eurasian Economic Union, although a fairly young integration association, is rapidly developing. In just the past year and a half of its existence, the project has literally transformed into a center of Eurasian gravity. On January 1st, 2015, the treaty on the established of the EAEU entered into force and on as soon as May 29th an agreement on establishing a free trade zone with Vietnam was signed. With each passing day, the number of countries announcing their desire to cooperate with the union is growing. Negotiations on establishing free trade zones are already underway with Egypt, Thailand, and Iran. Pakistan, India, China, and Singapore have also expressed their interest in the project. More and more countries are being added to this number.
Israel: rapprochement despite close ties with the US
Despite special relations with the United States and declarations that Russia will never replace such, relations between various countries and the EAEU are developing at an exponential rate.
A few days ago, negotiations on the establishment of a free trade zone between the EAEU and Israel were begun. It all started with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s routine visit to Moscow where he demonstrated his interest in the project. Last fall at a press conference, the ministry of immigrant absorption and strategic planning of Israel, Ze’ev Elkin, stated Israel's readiness to create a free trade zone with the EAEU. On this note, he stressed that such an agreement was planned to be concluded in the shorter possible time.
The frequent meetings of Netanyahu, the Israeli President Rivlin, and Putin are generally consistent with the statements of Israeli authorities. Abstract thoughts on the expansion of economic cooperation between the two countries have gradually moved into the sphere of concrete negotiations. And this is all thanks to the EAEU.
Following his meeting with his Israeli colleague Russian President Vladimir Putin remarked:
“I’m sure that the creation of a free trade zone between the EAEU and Israel would give impetus to the development of business relations. Recently, in Astana, I discussed this with colleagues of the EAEU and substantive negotiations on this matter are to be launched in this year.”
Putin also noted that Israeli agricultural producers will expand their share on the Russian market in the near future. Experts predict a possible rise in trade between Israel and the EAEU countries of 6-8%. Although these margins might not be so huge for Russia, the country nevertheless gains the opportunity to increase investments and improve the transfer of Israeli technology. First and foremost, we are dealing with agricultural technology, the pharmaceutical industry, and the aircraft industry.
Israel is where Palestine is
Following negotiations between Israel and Russia came the turn of Palestinian partners. On June 8th, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov, stated following negotiations with his Palestinian colleague Riad al-Maliki that Palestine is also interested in the integration project. On this, Putin said:
“Among the promising spheres we discussed today was the possibility of establishing relations and cooperation between Palestine and the EAEU. Our Palestinian friends have expressed their interest and we will support them in this.”
One zone for two
Incentives for expanding the EAEU have arisen not only outside but also within the organization itself. At the meeting of the heads of the CIS states in Bishkek, Kyrgyz Prime Minister Sooronbay Jeenbekov proposed to consider the introduction of a full-scale free trade regime between the CIS and EAEU. In his words, this would help strengthen trade and economic relations between the CIS and EAEU countries.
Experts, however, are skeptical about such statements. As the first deputy director of the “Eurasians - New Wave” Foundation and expert on Kyrgyzstan, Denis Berdakov, has noted, this is most likely a populist statement since there will be no real results from such a merger.
The analyst emphasizes: “The CIS and EAEU are different-paced and different-oriented integrations. The CIS is more of a cultural-educational character and allows the post-Soviet space to be linked in one way or another. But the EAEU is to a larger extent an economic integration aimed at the creation of a customs space.”
In addition, it is difficult to explain Jeenbekov’s statement given that the CIS space already has a free trade zone.
Nevertheless, the unification of these projects could become an impulse for the expansion of ties in the EAEU as well as with countries outside of the organization which desire to improve the quality standards of their products. In addition, according to the expert, without an expansion of the union’s ties with countries outside of the CIS and Central Asia, the EAEU is doomed insofar as its market capacities' further development and technologization are already insufficient.
Across countries and continents
The CIS is not the first integration association which has striven to work closely with the EAEU. In May 2015, negotiations began between the leaders of Russia and China on the conjugation of the Eurasian Economic Union and the “Silk Road Economic Belt.”
According to Putin, the linking of the EAEU and “Silk Road” projects means reaching a new level of partnership and essentially implies a common economic space on the continent.
But more than that, the EAEU is not planning to limit itself to the continent. In October 2015, the union established ties with two Latin American partners and memorandums were signed with Chile and Peru. In December, it became known that there are plans for the signing of a similar agreement with Mexico.
The force of attraction of the EAEU
Of course, it is to early to talk about the distant future of the EAEU as it is has only recently come into existence. 1.5 years of integration is a kind of funny measurement. Nonetheless, the organization has already managed to display its strength.
Over the past year and a half, the EAEU has become one of the most successful integration projects in the post-Soviet space. In this time, the union has advanced a long way in the sphere of taxation. The main policy objective at the current stage is avoiding double taxation and preventing tax evasion on income and capital. Thanks to this policy goal, the participating countries have already introduced changes to the legislation on the income of entities. They have put forth equal taxation on income for work in any country of the EAEU.
Of course, experts have noted many problems on the path of integration. Among them are included the lack of enthusiasm of individual participants, an uncertainty of priorities, the choice between the EAEU and EU, the dominance of political interests in the framework of economic integration, and the underdeveloped demand for investment services. Nevertheless, these factors are not always critical.
This point of view has been supported by the Chairwoman of the Federation Council, Valentina Matvienko:
“The EAEU is a bit more than a year old. But in this short term, five states with different levels of economic development were able to effectively cooperate in one integration association without withdrawals. Time is needed.”
Indeed, time will tell. In an evaluation of the union, moreover, one has to take into account the crisis phenomena in the world economy which have also affected the integration of the EAEU. Nevertheless, the interest of new countries and other integration groups from the most distant continents clearly suggests that the union has good prospects.
