Tag: Belarus

Not so long ago, last fall, I was surprised to read an article by the acclaimed Associated Press, claiming that radical and nationalist values are being imposed on children in Ukrainian camps.

The piece was authored by a Belarus national Yuras Karmanau, who covered the story one-sidedly and manipulatively, thereby putting the AP in an embarrassing position. This resulted in AP ultimately issuing a correction to the story as an apology.

An apology is fine, of course, but back then, in 2018, Karmanau’s article (not) surprisingly sounded to the tune of Russian propaganda, much to the pleasure of the latter. And although the Associated Press admitted the mistake, very few people in the post-Soviet space are aware of this because Russian mass media have flooded the information space with translations of the initial text. They didn’t do so with AP’s refutation piece though. So the myth created by Karmanau is still alive in the Russian Internet segment.

However, as you understand, this is only a prelude. A prelude to realizing that the same journalist’s article titled «Ukraine ex-PM accuses president of corruption» published Feb 4, where one of Ukraine’s presidential candidates Yulia Tymoshenko accused President Petro Poroshenko of corruption, is not simply a campaign thing but, once again, a play into the hands of the Kremlin propaganda.

First, Yulia Tymoshenko’s statements have long featured in plenty of journalistic investigations with a notion that this politician is more likely to lie than tell the truth.

Second, the Associated Press platform is once again used beyond its intended purpose – not as an impartial news resource but as a playground for political PR and – I’ll say this again – indulging Russian propaganda. After all, it is common knowledge that Petro Poroshenko is a leader who is extremely inconvenient for the Kremlin, so Moscow is ready to support any other runner for Ukraine’s top post other than the incumbent president. To be more exact, any of them, but it better be «theirs.»

Thirdly, it is difficult to take seriously the words of someone, whose work as prime minister was marked with a volume of funds siphoned from Ukraine doubling.

According to a research by FactCheck, when Viktor Yanukovych was prime minister in 2007, some $7.18 billion was illegally withdrawn from the country, while in 2008, when Yulia Tymoshenko took the reins, it was already $16.92 billion. In total, the amount of funds siphoned from Ukraine throughout the period of Yulia Tymoshenko’s premiership reached $33.12 billion

Fourth, and most important, is that this article not only highlighted a subjective opinion of the interested party, but also, along with the infamous story about children in Ukrainian camps being radicalized and taught to kill, worked in favor of Russian propaganda, which has become very keen on exploiting corruption-related topics in its hybrid infowar against Ukraine.

In a matter of hours, hundreds of Russian bots joined their efforts in spinning the Tymoshenko piece across social networks. The article was shared and republished, for a certain fee, in all sorts of media, forums, and information sites. I wonder whose money it was. And it’s big money, too!

These are the shares and reprints that will not go anywhere even if the Associated Press releases another correction. These are the shares and reprints that for another two months will be maintaining an information background, being revived in new references of all sorts.

It’s a shame that yet another Kremlin narrative has been sown in the minds of readers worldwide, and it is very unfortunate that the Associated Press platform has become a direct participant in the distribution of such unprofessional and manipulative content, which is very beneficial for the Kremlin, one of the parties to the Ukraine conflict.

Sergei Bolotin

Read More

Shortly before the new year 2019 the issue of tax maneuver in the oil sphere and its aftermaths for the interstate Russian-Belarusian relations became a stumbling stone.

Russia’s manipulations of oil prices are not a novation in the Russian-Belarusian relations, similar steps have been taken earlier. Without revealing details, it should be noted that a main point of this maneuver is gradual decrease (within 6 years) of the customs duty on export of oil and oil products down to a zero rate accompanied by growth of mineral extraction tax. Let’s refrain from estimating the effect of such decision of the Russian government on domestic market of oil products, yet response of Belarus, Russia’s neighboring state and the closest ally, to this oil maneuver was immediate and jerk. Well, there are several reasons to that.

We must admit that so-called “economic miracle” of Belarus, namely rather high (compared with other former Soviet Union states) standard of public social security, stable prices for food and essential commodities, is to a great extent resulted from special import conditions of the Russian oil (at the internal Russian prices). Belarusian oil refineries produce rather qualitative oil products, the sale of which in international market makes a considerable part of Belarus state budget.

Such state of affairs appeared to be acceptable for all parties up to a point, as far as Belarus presented itself as a state moving towards establishment of the Union State with Russia. Now, the tax maneuver in the oil sphere will deprive Belarus of getting profit as domestic Russian oil price will grow making it unprofitable to purchase oil in Russia for its subsequent processing at the Belarusian oil refineries.

Negotiations with Putin as for possible loss compensations came to a deadlock. It’s no wonder, since the actual purpose of Russia’s tax maneuver with oil export duties is resolving rather political than economic issues. That is fostering integration of Belarus into the Union State, which was unequivocally reiterated by the Russian president at a recent Moscow meeting with Lukashenko. Thus, Kremlin keeps using economic blackmail as one of the main tools in a geopolitical game.

Well, what is the purpose of such unexampled pressure upon Belarus? The answer is quite obvious – establishment of the Union State amid international isolation may become one of the safe ways to preserve and delegate the power, as well as an opportunity for strengthening of Russia’s geopolitical positions in the region.

However, it seems also obvious that this would not turn into the equal union of two states, but to absorption, i.e. actually soft annexation of Belarus. At this year’s first governmental meeting Lukashenko stated that to his mind the Union State is a voluntary association, which has no common with absorption and pressure, which means that such short-sighted policy may cost Russia the only ally. The position of Belarusian leader is clear: he is not ready to change state independence for any economic concessions.

Lukashenko’s attempts to come into contacts with the West, such as visit of Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belarus Vladimir Makei to London, negotiations with Poland and Lithuania on strengthening cooperation, etc. extremely irritate the Russian government. They demonstrate that the Belarusian leader would rather not giving up.

The actions taken by Kremlin with the purpose of Belarus absorption are logical continuation of Russia’s imperial policy. However, you should not ignore the fact that they pose new threats for the Baltic States and Poland. Belarus has played a role of “a buffer zone” between Russia and Europe until now and its transformation into one of Russian regions will increase probability of the new hybrid conflicts involving Russian Federation, similar to those in the Crimea and in the east of Ukraine.

For this reason, the problem of maintaining political and economic sovereignty of Belarus has vital value for its nationals; furthermore, it plays an important role in supporting peace and stability throughout all European continent. Notwithstanding serious problems faced by Belarus with respect to observance of civil rights and freedoms, its determination to defend sovereignty and freedom deserve support of the world community.

Read More

Russians have a proverb – ‘Mend your sails while the weather is fine’, this means that success of the business largely depends on preparation for it.

It seems that the Russian president is far from disregarding this conventional wisdom especially given the fact that he has a power over a huge and resourceful state in his hands and he needs to retain it in the times of aggravating crisis. Therefore, the country leaders often use mythical threat from the outside as mobilization strategy.

Despite of the record votes gained by Putin following spring 2018 elections, people’s dissatisfaction with his domestic policy grows proportionally to exaggerating of economic and social problems: fall of manufacturing, rapid tax growth, unpopular pension reform, restriction of civil liberties, abrupt fall of people’s income etc. Still there is a little cause for optimism, even despite of a tendency towards increase of oil prices, which is the main resource fundamental for the Russian economy for many years.

Kremlin realizes that only success beyond the state may distract people’s attention and boost state leader’s rating. It is proven by Russians’ response to annexation of the Crimea in 2014, when Putin’s rating skyrocketed (86%). However, Kremlin is aware that today a “small victorious war” abroad bears certain risks especially for the state, which has already got bogged down in East Ukraine and Syria facing sanctions and international isolation. Authorities decides to act quietly and, whenever possible, using non-military methods.

Present Kremlin’s rhetoric suggests the conclusion that Belarus will become the next candidate for Russia’s “foreign policy success”. For a long time, its independence from Russia has been nominal. Though both states exist within association named the ‘Union State’, Belarus depends on Russia economically, in particular, in supply of the Russian oil (at below market price), which makes one of the sources of budget income after its processing and reselling to the foreign markets. As a result, Lukashenko is bound to correlate his internal and foreign policy with Moscow. While the Belarusian President affords criticism towards the Russian authorities from time to time, he always supports Kremlin’s actions in the international field. Resonance UN votes on issues disputable for Russia may serve as a prove as far as the Belarusian delegation has always taken the part of Moscow.

Quite recently, in the middle of December, 2018, the Russian Prime Minister Medvedev demanded from the Belarusian leadership in rigid, almost categorical manner strengthening of “integration” between two states. Referring to the treaty on the ‘Union State’, the head of the Russian government declared the beginning of the process of supranational structure’s creation for implementation of the unified legislation and tax system. By the way, the treaty provides establishing a single parliament and creation of single currency and national symbols.

To tell that Minsk was taken aback by such statement – not to tell anything. The Belarusian President urgently arrived to Moscow to negotiate with Putin, but apparently, they did not yield desirable result. And four bags of the Belarusian potato presented by Lukashenko to the Russian colleague did not help. The Belarusian President counted that he will manage to ensure smooth transition of the power to “crown prince” (the illegitimate son Nikolay) …

All these are jokes, but in fact, a process of Belarus absorption has already started. Certainly, it is not a question for one day, but Putin has quite enough time for implementation of his plans. This process most likely will have been completed by 2024 and the same year the next presidential elections are taking place in Russia. Probably Putin counts that peaceful “accession” of Belarus will allow to improve his personal rating, to distract attention of electorate and under the guise of elections of the head of new ‘Union State’ to carry out safe transit of the power. Let’s say once again, the Kremlin does not consider an option of force accession of the neighboring state today, and intends to make everything silently and, as if, voluntary. Naturally, in so doing nobody will ask the opinion of the Belarusian leadership and, in particular, of the Belarusian people…

Except for obvious ignoring of all international standards and laws such absorption bears in itself serious threats for safety of the European continent. First, Russia receives some kind of military base, especially in opposition against Ukraine and the Baltic states. Secondly, it strengthens its position in the European market as exclusive supplier of energy carriers, having an opportunity to dictate its terms. Such silent annexation is dangerous, because it also stimulates the aggressor to further actions. It is worth reminding that in the thirties of the last century a well-known tactics of “pacification of an aggressor” allowed Hitler at first to seize some countries without blood and any consequences and then to launch the world war resulted in tens of millions of victims and the destroyed continent. Therefore, perhaps, it is worth changing tactics of a pacification of an aggressor to more effective measures for preventing grand plans of Kremlin’s “gatherer of the lands”, otherwise it may be …

Read More

Recently the Russian website on public procurements posted a very interesting message about holding a closed auction on deployment of the latest Samarkand complexes for radio-electronic fight in 13 military units across all Russia and… in Belarus. The initial contract costs 61 million rubles. According to the plan, these complexes have to be put into operation until 10 November 2019.

In Belarus the Samarkand complexes are planned to be deployed on two military facilities of the Russian Federation which remained there since the USSR (radiolocation station near Gantsevichi and post for a long-distance communication with submarines of the Naval Forces of Russia near Vileyka), thereby gradually expanding the military presence in this state.

Moscow has never covered their longstanding plans to create the full-fledged Russian military bases in the territory of Belarus. Finally, they found the excellent opportunity to put these plans into practice – the Poles proposed to construct US military base on their territory supposing to place the US light armored division.

The U.S. and Polish Presidents, Donald Trump and Andrzej Duda, already discussed this issue during their meeting in Washington. The Polish authorities declared their determination to allocate 2 billion dollars for this project.

It’s very likely to assume that during negotiations behind closed doors in Sochi on September 22 one of the preconditions for renewal of the Belarus economy’s “hydrocarbon sponsorship” laid down by Putin was establishment of the Russian military base in Belarus. Well, that is an assumption only. However, on 21 October new ambassador in Belarus Mikhail Babich in his extensive interview to the Belarusian TV said that Moscow would qualify any military attack on Belarus as an attack on Russia. Commenting on a possible establishment of permanent US base in Poland, he said also that increase in the US military commitment near Russia and Belarus borders would not promote safety of neighboring states: “Since precisely neither for Poland, nor for the neighboring states… where these bases are deployed, such opposition will bring nothing good”.

It is noteworthy that discussing a possibility of Russian military operations in the territory of the allied State, the Russian ambassador speaks about his country of residence as not an independent state, but as a part of Russia, ignoring the position of the Belarusian leaders.

The issue of establishment of the Russian military base in Belarus was subjected to long and difficult discussions in 2014-2015. In 2015, the Russian government considered the draft agreement with Belarus on deployment of Russian Air Force base on their territory. That time the question was a deployment of a wing equipped with SU-27 fighters in Belarusian city Baranovichi. It is remarkable that the Russian servicemen considered a matter of the new Russian military base in Belarus already settled and spoke about it as about the accomplished fact. However, in 2015 before the next re-elections Mr. Lukashenko refused deployment of the Russian military base in Belarus.

Meanwhile, Moscow strengthened their pressure upon Belarus in the field of defence. The apogee was the last year’s Zapad 2017 military manoeuvres accompanied with a range of scandals related to lack of coordination between the Russian servicemen and the Belarusian Joint Staff on the Belarusian territory as the first pursued to make it clear who is the master.

Today Kremlin obtrusively suggests Minsk to accept the Russian military base in the Belarusian territory again, having secured this idea in the intergovernmental document – the military doctrine of the Allied State. Since then, in case of possible Lukashenko’s free will, Moscow may put in “failure to follow allied obligations”.

Further relations between Minsk and Moscow will depend on whether Alexander Lukashenko would sign the new “allied” military doctrine without specific objections or he would fall again to chaffer.

Read More

In 1991, as a result of the fall of the Soviet Union and following declaration of its independence, Belarus became a new independent state in Europe. Neighbouring states, and primarily the Russian Federation, became the main vectors of its foreign policy. At the same time Belarus realized that the European Union is definitely important for cooperation in trade and economic issues. Moreover, EU is a promising source of investment resources.

One cannot fall into line with the fact that Belarus – EU relationships until recently resembled a rollercoaster. Despite the fact that the EU and Belarus have signed the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement as early as in 1995, still it is not ratified by the EU. In addition, the European Union has excluded Belarus from its European neighbourhood policy (which was initially developed in order to define the “friend circle” in geographic proximity to the EU), making it a direct response to authoritarian Lukashenko’s regime. In their attempts to affect the Belorussian dictator the European Union has introduced sanctions against a number of Belarusian enterprises and individuals, however, at the end of 2015 the better part of them was terminated and on February 28, 2016 the EU decision on lifting sanctions against Belarus came into effect. It seems that amid the aggressive Russian foreign policy the EU has softened its stand towards Belarus seeking to gain an ally. In the meantime, Russia-Belarus relationships experience crisis, which has a number of causes.

Border zone

The Russian Federation and Belarus apply different visa rules. However, both states still have not developed a unified approach in this regard. The problem aggravated in 2017, when Minsk has repealed visas for nationals of 80 states at once, including the US and EU states. As for Russia, they still have visa regime with all of these states. Obviously, this decision strikes Moscow’s fancy, as the Russian part started from passport inspections on the flights from Minsk, and then the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation demanded to organize proper border control on the land boundaries. That was not adjusted with Belarus and Lukashenko has already accused Russia in violation of free border treaty.

Black gold

Belarus has oil refinery plants which critically need Russian oil for operation. The Russian Federation also benefits from oil supply to Belarus: primarily, that is sales market; secondly, that is the source of relatively cheap petrol and other oil products. In order to streamline the scheme, Russia agreed on abolishing export duties for the oil supplied to Belarus (furthermore, part of this oil turn back as petrol to Russia).

However, Belarus exports petrol to the West and takes export duty in return. As the result, oil products come to Europe, Belorussian budget gain profits while Russia stays empty-handed being unsatisfied with such situation.

Over the years, gas disputes between these two states obtained permanent nature: Belarus supposes Gazprom should supply gas to the allied state at the Russian domestic prices though gas monopolist does not agree with such position. Due to this early in 2017 Minsk declared the need to reduce oil supplies from Russia and set about finding alternative options.

Food war

Belarus is actively involved in exportation of the agricultural products to the Russian market taking significant fraction of the market which provokes dissatisfaction of Russian agrarians. Situation has been complicated after introduction of anti-sanctions by Russia as among other goods those under sanctions get on Russian market through the Belorussian territory. However, Minsk refused to introduce prohibition of importation similar to Russian. Late in January, 2017 the Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance restrained the supplies from two Belorussian meat-packing factories: Moscow believes that prohibited Ukrainian beef gets on market under the pretence of Belorussian. In this regard this year on February 3 Lukashenko required initiation of a criminal case in relation to head of the Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance Sergey Dankvert “for inflicting damage to the state”.

What is next?

It was repeatedly noticed that Belorussian foreign policy for the last decade is a shadow of former self. That is affirmed by the messages of Aleksandr Lukashenko which was usually pro-Russian and anti-Western; however, since 2014 Belorussian leader fell back on making overtures to Europe. Lukashenko did not support Russia in respect of Ukrainian issue. Moreover, he tried to appear an arbiter by organizing meeting on a peaceful settlement of the military conflict in Ukraine, for execution of Minsk agreements. According to many political analysts, the possible purpose of his regular visit was desire to use Ukraine to build the “bridge of friendship” with the EU and gather support for the occasion of aggravation of conflict with Russia.

Meanwhile the Belarus leader has allowed Putin to organise the military manoeuvres “Zapad – 2017” (14-20 September 2017) with numeric Russian military commitment involved. However numerous observers from international organisations, particularly NATO, have been invited to warn negative reaction from EU on this military manoeuvres.

It seems that Belarus leader continues to walk a delicate line between the East and the West and attempts gathering Europe’s support by all means. However, he is still not ready to make a full stop in relationships with a “big brother” (Russia). How long he will manage to keep this balance – time will show.

Read More