Donald Tusk. Caucasus. Four years later

For four years, quite many changes have occurred in these countries, although outwardly it would seem that the hot summer life in the South Caucasus has shifted into a measured rhythm, which has somewhat spoiled the parliamentary scandal in Tbilisi with the participation of the Russian parliamentary troupe.

During the four years of the absence of Tusk in the Caucasus in the format of the "Eastern Partnership" of the EU, the actors of which are three South Caucasian countries, and in these countries themselves there have been changes of a global nature.

During the July 2015 visit of Tusk in the Eastern Partnership (EaP) there were three leaders of the European movement in the person of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, and three outsiders - Armenia, Azerbaijan and Belarus. During this time, the balance ruined and Armenia was added to the lineup of leaders.

Skeptics were wrong when, according to the results of the Riga Summit of the EP in 2015, they asserted that the transition of Brussels from a packet to a differentiated relationship with program members would bury the idea of transition to the East. However, during this time we have witnessed wave-like changes, mainly in the societies of the project countries, which have noticeably advanced the understanding of the need for change in the public consciousness of all six countries.

Interestingly, in none of the EaP countries the elites expressed readiness to force European integration, as evidenced even by the latest crisis in such a leading country as Georgia.

In this sense, European integration, which the elites resist, has nevertheless increased the seeds of social activity and importance, which more or less forces governments to take into account the opinion of the people.

It happened in the countries of the first four European integration, it happens in outsider countries. For four years in Azerbaijan, the government has lost the threads of constant economic growth, information control over the society and as a result has faced a sharp drop in living standards, rollback of macro-indicators, growing activity and resistance of the society.

The government turned out to be isolated at the foreign policy level as well, where for years the emerging defense system from the current and former European officials passed under the pressure of scandalous revelations such as caviar diplomacy and Azerbaijani laundry.

Like four years ago, in Baku Tusk publicly ignored issues and problems of democracy, human rights, the rule of law and other similar subjects of negotiations in the framework of the Eastern Partnership. But this does not mean that the President of the European Council did not speak on these topics during his conversation with President Aliyev. In the final statement of the two presidents, we did not hear any mention of such a problem, which may mean that the parties did not reach consensus on it, their paths diverge in understanding the issues of democracy and they have nothing to say about it.

As one of the organizers of the anti-communist Independent Student Union in Gdansk and a member of Solidarity in the late 80s of the last century, Tusk, with all his diplomatic status, can hardly understand everything that is happening in Azerbaijan.

On Thursday, July 11, speaking at the opening of the international conference "The European Way of Georgia", which is dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the EU"s Eastern Partnership program, Tusk parried the words of Russian President Vladimir Putin that the collapse of the USSR was a huge mistake of the era: "I want loudly declare that the collapse and destruction of the USSR was a very positive event for Georgia, Poland, Central and Eastern Europe, and, I am sure, Russia itself."

Many people in the European Union think so, but not many in the Azerbaijani ruling elite. This watershed in views on authoritarianism and democracy will remain decisive in the relations between the EU and Azerbaijan.

If to look at the results of the watershed since the first visit of Tusk to the Caucasus, it is possible to logically predict what the consequences of this collision of worldviews might be.