Add news
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010June 2010July 2010
August 2010
September 2010October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011March 2011April 2011May 2011June 2011July 2011August 2011September 2011October 2011November 2011December 2011January 2012February 2012March 2012April 2012May 2012June 2012July 2012August 2012September 2012October 2012November 2012December 2012January 2013February 2013March 2013April 2013May 2013June 2013July 2013August 2013September 2013October 2013November 2013December 2013January 2014February 2014March 2014April 2014May 2014June 2014July 2014August 2014September 2014October 2014November 2014December 2014January 2015February 2015March 2015April 2015May 2015June 2015July 2015August 2015September 2015October 2015November 2015December 2015January 2016February 2016March 2016April 2016May 2016June 2016July 2016August 2016September 2016October 2016November 2016December 2016January 2017February 2017March 2017April 2017May 2017June 2017July 2017August 2017September 2017October 2017November 2017December 2017January 2018February 2018March 2018April 2018May 2018June 2018July 2018August 2018September 2018October 2018November 2018December 2018January 2019February 2019March 2019April 2019May 2019June 2019July 2019August 2019September 2019October 2019November 2019December 2019January 2020February 2020March 2020April 2020May 2020June 2020July 2020August 2020September 2020
News Every Day |

“Brotherly Belarus”

Russia is repeating its usual mistake — and losing "brotherly Belarus"

The protests in Belarus on Sunday had a subtly different flavor. The bravery and creativity were the same, as was the brutish behavior by the riot police. But attention has shifted a little from the regime’s own misdeeds towards the price that Russia might ask (and Belarus might pay) for its survival.

The talks last week between the Russian prime minister Mikhail Mishustin (real title: the Kremlin’s messenger boy) and Aliaksander Lukashenka, the Belarusian president (make that “usurper”) presage a revival of talks on closer economic and political ties. Russia would bail out the regime in Minsk financially and politically, in return for its subjugation. More details may emerge after Lukashenka meets the Russian leader Vladimir Putin on September 14th.

This may make sense in tactical terms for the Kremlin. You give something in order to get something. A bigger military footprint in Belarus, a whiff of geopolitical glory, and the chance (no doubt) for cronies in Moscow to acquire some lucrative assets would perhaps make up for the difficulties involved, and the messy business of dealing with the pro-democracy protests.

But from a strategic point of view, this approach is disastrous. The protests in Belarus have so far been notable for their lack of anti-Russian or anti-Kremlin sentiment. Nobody is complaining about the imposition of Soviet rule on the Belarusian Democratic Republic in 1919. Nobody is demanding an accounting for the crimes committed by the Kremlin on Belarusian territory in past decades. Nobody complains about the russification of the Khrushchev era. Nobody is waving European Union or NATO flags, or calling for the country to make a decisive westwards shift in its geopolitical orientation. The protests have focused on simple, immediate demands: free elections, the release of political prisoners, and an end to police brutality.

Russia should rejoice at this. Let the Lukashenka regime pay the price for its misrule. A democratic upheaval in Belarus might be inconvenient, but wily, powerful Russia could manage the fall-out, just as when the kleptocratic and authoritarian regime in Armenia fell in 2018. By contrast, in propping up the regime in return for what will be perceived as a crippling and humiliating diminution of Belarusian sovereignty, the Kremlin will create exactly the problem it most wishes to avoid: anti-Russian (or at least anti-colonial) sentiment in its one remaining ally.

This mistake is not new. It is exactly what the Russian Federation has been doing since 1991. It is hard to remember now the affection and respect that democrats felt for each other throughout the former Soviet Union in the weeks and months before and immediately after its collapse. I remember watching huge demonstrations in Moscow in support of the Baltic states, still battling against Soviet occupation. I sat in on meetings where the city officials from Moscow and Leningrad conspired with the leaders of what were then “Soviet republics” to subvert the Kremlin’s grip on the economy. The slogan “for your freedom and ours” had real clout and meaning.

All that changed when it became clear that Russia had not really changed. It dragged its feet on withdrawing its occupation forces. It meddled in the affairs of the former captive nations, using money, propaganda, and subversion. NATO membership, once impractical, suddenly became a moral and strategic imperative. Wars in Georgia and Ukraine made those countries into adversaries. Even non-NATO Sweden and Finland eventually realized that the threat from Russia was real. Now even mild-mannered Belarusians are learning the same lesson Imperial Russia has no friends or allies, only subjects. Russians may lament the loss of “brotherly Belarus”. They have only themselves to blame.

September 9, 2020

The post "Brotherly Belarus" first appeared on CEPA.

Read also

Biden Lets Trump Hang Around

How Arsenal could line up at Liverpool in EFL Cup with Mikel Arteta to make host of changes with Nketiah up top

What Trump, Biden had to say about economic issues in the first debate

News, articles, comments, with a minute-by-minute update, now on — latest news 24/7. You can add your news instantly now — here