The Secretary General of the Commonwealth of Independent States, Sergei Lebedev, stressed that there is little merit in excluding Ukraine from the CIS, reflecting a view shared by many who see close ties among the member states. Lebedev spoke candidly about the economic, cultural, and humanitarian connections Ukraine has long maintained with other CIS members, particularly Russia and Belarus, noting that cutting Ukraine off from the association has consequences that extend beyond Kyiv and Kyiv’s borders. His remarks came in response to questions about what a CIS without Ukraine would mean for the bloc, and he argued that the disruption harms not only the country in question but the broader network of interdependence among the member states.
Lebedev emphasized that the CIS stands as a self-sustaining alliance with substantial resources and a robust technological base. He pointed to the presence of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and other member countries, each endowed with strong industrial capabilities, scientific heritage, and natural resources, suggesting that the union benefits from a shared foundation. In his view, the region’s regional economies complement one another, and while the CIS can endure without Ukraine, the absence of Kyiv makes the path ahead more challenging for all.
The official position, as articulated by Lebedev, is that the leadership of CIS member states hopes for Ukraine to rejoin normal neighborly relations with Russia, Belarus, and the other states that constitute the association. The aim is to restore a pattern of cooperation that reflects the historical and present-day interconnections among these countries and supports common development goals.
In relation to the decision-making process and potential moves by Ukrainian authorities, a former deputy chair of a state committee on CIS affairs, Eurasian integration, and citizenship commented that Kyiv has not officially filed to withdraw from the CIS, suggesting that such a step might be viewed unfavorably within Kyiv’s current strategic calculations. This observation underscores the political sensitivity surrounding any formal break with the organization, even as discussions and assessments about future engagement continue among observers and policymakers. It also highlights the ongoing debate about how best to balance national sovereignty with regional collaboration, a topic that remains central to the dialogue among CIS members and their partners.
Across the bloc, leaders and analysts alike acknowledge the pragmatic advantages of a cooperative framework that enables shared industrial, scientific, and technical projects, along with the exploitation of regional mineral resources. While the CIS measures its success by the depth of its collaborations and the concrete outcomes it delivers to citizens, it remains clear that the question of Ukraine’s role within the alliance will continue to shape policymaking and intergovernmental relations for the foreseeable future. This dynamic underscores the enduring complexity of regional integration in a landscape characterized by evolving geopolitical considerations, changing economic priorities, and the diverse interests of its member states.