Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The crunch in Belorus.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The crunch in Belorus.

    It seems that the times of the Belorussian autocrat 'shuffling' (or playing off) his Eastern neighbour against his Western neighbours, an act he has succeeded in playing for years while at times persecuting his people and at others providing them an informal blessing to protest, may finally be coming to an end.

    The problem is that Moscow is increasingly anxious to finally formalise the so called 'Union State' - an idea that 'in principle' was agreed in 1996. It is, as it were, the Muscovite equivalent of the European Union derived from their counterpart of the Eurasian Economic Union - the 'free trade area' that the Muscovite 'federation', Kazakhstan and Belorus are supposed to have between them - in theory. The Belorusian National Assembly (the supposed 'Parliament') actually passed the 'Union State' ratification in 2000. The 'Union State' actually envisages a "Supreme State Council", a Council of Ministers and joint Union Parliament (of which 75 deputies would be 'elected' from Muscovy and 28 from Belarus), a common currency and common 'Court of the Union'.

    None of this exists needless to say because obviously Lukashenka want to keep hold of his own personal fiefdom, he notoriously does not on with or trust Putin and does not want Belarus to become another victim of Putin's neo imperialism. For this reason he spoke out about the Muscovite annexation of Crimea and offered to 'mediate' the so called Minsk Accords; it is in his interests to support the independence of Ukraine as should he not he too would be doomed.

    From Moscow's imperialistic point of view the incorporation of Belarus into a 'Union State' that they would dominate has great strategic advantages threatening the Baltics - the only connection being the 'Suwalki Gap' between the main 'Union State' and the Muscovite enclave of Konnigsburg/Kaliningrad and effectively threatening a Lviv/Lwow Gap to close the southern border of Ukraine and Poland. In addition it has been speculated that should this 'Union State' be said to have been created before 2024, when Putin must step down as President (again) after his second second consecutive term, a 'new state' could be said to come into existence and so Putin could become the first President of the 'Union State' when duly 'elected'.

    So the problem is money, and that Muscovy does not enough of it to subsidise Belarusian gas as it does with it's own slaves - or rather this is the excuse but basically both the autocrats are greedy thieves who do not trust each other. So the current gas dispute started last November - gas and oil being the main leverage Moscow uses to force others to do as they are told. This dispute actually came after supplies to Belarus - and Poland, Czechia etc via the Druzhba ('Friendship') pipeline (which supplies around 10% of Europes energy needs at present) were found to be contaminated with some chemical. Muscovy cut it off to solve the problem and this of course deprived Belarus (and the onward customers) of revenue while it was sorted out. Belarus (and the others) obviously asked for compensation but Transneft refused resulting in an appeal to the Stockholm Tribunal (that awarded the Ukrainian Naftogaz over $4bn in damages against Gazprom) that is due later this year.

    Following that Moscow, in the guise of Gazprom, decided that prices for Belorusian gas supply in 2020 must rise. Naturally Luka objects as from the Belorusian point of view where is the compensation for the bad oil? and on New Years Day Moscow cut the supply. This is after the 'happy couple' of the would be 'Union State' met in Sochi on December 7th last year - there are videos of them skiing together. The talks however were a failure; the energy price being the main thorn supposedly. Well yesterday Belarus requested gas from Poland, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Lithuania and basically anyone who was willing to help them escape the Muscovite blackmail.

    Sorry something was wrong earlier and I could not post this link: https://belsat.eu/en/news/minsk-look...ble-countries/
    Last edited by snapper; 15 Jan 20,, 16:06.

  • #2
    'Election' yesterday in Belarus... A Belarusian exit poll gives opposition candidate Tikhanovskaya 69.7% and incumbent Lukashenko only 16.3% out of 58,500 voters.
    "Official" exit poll: 79.9% Lukashenko, 6.8% Tikhanovskaya. Riots in alot of cities overnight; one dead.

    Last edited by snapper; 10 Aug 20,, 14:05.

    Comment


    • #3
      Interesting that there is an election at all, not a fully committed dictator.

      What level of support does he really have snapper?

      And what do we know of his opponent ?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by tantalus View Post
        What level of support does he really have snapper?
        A poll before the election gave him 3% support; it became a 'meme' and graffiti slogan on his pictures "Mr 3%."

        And what do we know of his opponent ?[/QUOTE]

        Her Husband, who is/was a popular 'blogger' was standing in the election, also a wealthy banker. Both were disbarred from standing and arrested whereupon Svetlana Tikhanovskaya (the Wife of the imprisoned 'blogger') announced her candidacy and all the opposition candidates gave their support. Her program is to free all the arrested people (including her Husband) and organise free and fair elections in six months.

        She is a translator/English teacher by profession (spent some time in Ireland) and a Mother of two.
        Last edited by snapper; 15 Aug 20,, 11:41.

        Comment


        • #5
          I though her comments on personal "weakness" of fleeing the risk of persecution acted as a perfect counterweight to the personality of a strongman. Also perhaps provides an insight to the kind of people we probably need in politics and symbolic to why women on average may make better politicians in the 21st century then men, less focused on projecting strength and less driven by ego.

          Comment


          • #6
            She did say publicly the day after the 'election' she would not leave and honestly I think she must return - even if she is in hiding within Belarus. Alot of army/security people are throwing away their uniforms in disgust at the actions of the regime - which has essentially turned to brutalising it's own people and many companies are on strike. It is good weather (not snow as it was in Ukraine in November - February 2013/14) so I cannot see an end to the protests.

            Ahead of this so called 'election' the "Lublin Triangle" was finally formed which though weak in it's current format is long overdue and has substantial historical resonance - a matter important to the enemy who change history to suit the current dictator (including religious history). Lublin is where was signed the Union State that created the Polish - Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1569 (it had before a dual Kingdom/Grand Duchy by marriage after a Polish Queen (Jadwiga) married the Lithuanian 'Grand Duke' (Władysław II Jagiełło). Lithuania at the time comprised a very large 'Duchy' including all of what is today Belarus and most of modern day Ukraine which essentially passed into Polish administration. Polish aristocratic families, including mine, moved east and became powerful landlords/magnates etc... to serve as administrative and war leaders (Voivods). Lwow (in Polish), Lviv (in Ukrainian) was for long a 'Polish city'. The signing of this new Lublin Agreement is designed not only to discuss various trade and infrastructure issues but as a direct format at the re-integration of Belarus within the 'Western sphere'; it was signed on August 5th, four days before the Belarus 'election'; (https://jamestown.org/program/lithua...blin-triangle/). Mostly it was a Lithuanian initiative, Zelensky being a fool (or worse) and the current Polish Government being more concerned about re-establishing a form of autocracy and banning foreign press etc...

            I think the 'protesters' ultimately have to win - maybe not this time but sometime. Lukashenka is as bad as Yanukovych and Putin and ultimately no single person can rule any nation for his and his 'friends' collective benefit at the expense of the vast majority of the population. I hope in a way they succeed this time but I worry about what happens if they do succeed in forcing Luka out knowing the Muscovite example of Ukraine 2014. Do Poland and Lithuania and Ukraine become involved if they succeed in unseating Lukashenka and Muscovy invades as they did with Ukraine in 2014? If they are not prepared to do so then frankly the new Lublin Triangle is worthless.
            Last edited by snapper; 15 Aug 20,, 15:58.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by snapper View Post
              She did say publicly the day after the 'election' she would not leave and honestly I think she must return - even if she is in hiding within Belarus. Alot of army/security people are throwing away their uniforms in disgust at the actions of the regime - which has essentially turned to brutalising it's own people and many companies are on strike. It is good weather (not snow as it was in Ukraine in November - February 2013/14) so I cannot see an end to the protests.
              It was probably a mistake to leave but still an interesting anecdote to see how she framed that choice.

              Originally posted by snapper View Post

              I think the 'protesters' ultimately have to win - maybe not this time but sometime. Lukashenka is as bad as Yanukovych and Putin and ultimately no single person can rule any nation for his and his 'friends' collective benefit at the expense of the vast majority of the population. I hope in a way they succeed this time but I worry about what happens if they do succeed in forcing Luka out knowing the Muscovite example of Ukraine 2014. Do Poland and Lithuania and Ukraine become involved if they succeed in unseating Lukashenka and Muscovy invades as they did with Ukraine in 2014? If they are not prepared to do so then frankly the new Lublin Triangle is worthless.
              The idea of this being poor timing and backfiring is a concern. How many of these moments have ended in false dawns and bad outcomes lately...seems many and the EU is not well positioned politically to help nations at the border. Frustrating.

              Do you think a russian invasion is a real risk if the regime collpases in favour of west leaning protestors and elections?
              Last edited by tantalus; 15 Aug 20,, 16:18.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tantalus View Post
                The idea of this being poor timing and backfiring is a concern. How many of these moments have ended in false dawns and bad outcomes lately...seems many and the EU is not well positioned politically to help nations at the border. Frustrating.
                Poland while it was 'partitioned' and even under Soviet rule had 'uprisings' every 20-30yrs on average. Solidarity succeeded. It becomes a national 'tradition' until you liberate yourselves.

                Originally posted by tantalus View Post
                Do you think a russian invasion is a real risk if the regime collpases in favour of west leaning protestors and elections?
                Why would I have reason to doubt it? Luka has today said that a 'revolution' in Belarus would "threaten Muscovy" and hinted he may ask Moscow for help. Then there is the Ukrainian example after our 'revolution' in 2014. They might also lose communication with Kaliningrad if they did not intervene.

                From where I sit it looks increasingly likely that Luka will lose this;



                The question is IF he does what happens? I know for a fact that the 'Lublin three' are considering a response if Moscow intervenes in a 'hybrid' or explicit manner and rightly so. It would be a strategic threat to all the Baltic states, Poland and Ukraine.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by snapper View Post


                  Why would I have reason to doubt it? Luka has today said that a 'revolution' in Belarus would "threaten Muscovy" and hinted he may ask Moscow for help. Then there is the Ukrainian example after our 'revolution' in 2014. They might also lose communication with Kaliningrad if they did not intervene.
                  Is there an obvious proxy in Belarus that Putin can back without boots on the ground?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Not obviously... the problem is that Lukashenka has been in power for 26yrs so no real 'alternative' has been permitted. Doubtless they could find some some unknown KGB (yes they still have the KGB in Belarus) puppet to obey orders.

                    Meanwhile Moscow has said it will provide "security assistance" if requested while Lukashenka yesterday said 'there was a NATO military buildup on the borders.' This was at the the smaller of two rallies held yesterday in Minsk by the '80%' who voted for Luka.



                    Meanwhile the strikes are increasing - including state run TV which has walked out.

                    I have seen some people trying to make the case that Belarus is different from Ukraine; that it would not 'in Putin's interest' to intervene militarily (even in a hybrid manner). See https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...nvade-belarus/ for example by Anders Aslund (an economist). While I have alot of time for Anders and his colleagues at the Atlantic Council I think it would be absolutely insane to take this 'they won't come' view for certain. I recall thinking in mid February 2014 that it was unlikely that Moscow would move on Crimea: The facts were that Crimea was a loss making part of Ukraine - every year it received a subsidy from the Central Government and it was dependent on mainland Ukraine for gas, electricity and water... Why would a sane person take on money drain that would require a complete overhaul of the gas, electricity and water delivery infrastructure? They would not it seemed to me much as Mr Aslund reasons today.

                    But this is not how the mafia kleptocracy in Moscow see 'gain' and 'loss'; they work on a different set of paradigms from ours (and from Anders Aslund). Their first priority which over-rides all else is to remain in power and enrich themselves; should they lose power their liberty and quite possibly their lives may be at risk due to illegal self enrichment and murderous activities (Muscovy has the highest wealth inequality in the world due to this legalised robbery). I am quite sure therefore that one of, if not the main Muscovite motivation for the Crimean 'anschluss' was essentially to save face. They simply could not be seen to 'lose Ukraine' without some 'victory' (however economically pyrrhic it may have been). It worked and big fuss was made of it on all the state TV etc' "Krymnash/Our Crimea" it was hailed as and Putin's approval rating went up into the 80+% (if you believe the state polling). Today his approval ratings are around 30% even in state polls... Belarus offers a vital strategic gain and has large lucrative state owned manufacturing and petro chemical industries that could be absorbed/robbed by kleptocracy and how weak would they look in the eyes of their own subjugated population if they allowed a part of the 'union state' to escape? Their fear is primarily that a Ukrainian or Belarusian 'revolution' arises to oust them which long term is certain to happen. It may not make sense economically as an economist would think and I thought about Crimea in early 2014 but they just are not working on the same considerations as us.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Decent article explaining how Belarus got to where it is today: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...a-new-belarus/

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X