Tag: Kremlin

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

In his interview to the Foreign Policy Alexander Hug, Deputy Chief Monitor of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine declared lack of direct evidence of participation of the Russian Federation in Donbass conflict and noticed that everyone is free to buy the Russian military uniform in any shop. However, remarkable it may be, the OSCE Representative made such statement the day before his resignation. Such unexpected and uncovered tribute to Kremlin certifies to the fact that Hug’s statements are synchronized with Kremlin “grey eminence”, while OSCE’s objectivity and ability to perform their function in Donbass properly have often raised great doubts.

Since Mr. Hug’s statements do not hold water, such unprofessional opinion declared on behalf of the whole monitoring mission causes significant damage to the OSCE image and confirms its engagement as well as the fact that formerly authoritative and solid organization discredited itself and called into question its ability to perform the role which historically was assigned to it. The use of this organization’s authority for dissemination of unveracious data and subjective data interpretation, is unacceptable for heads of such level.

Hug’s statement contravenes EU shared position concerning the Russian Federation. His words also call into question advisability of sanctions policy against Russia and weaken EU unity in a question of counteraction to aggressive Kremlin actions. Hug’s speech appeared right after the resolution of the European Parliament on strengthening sanctions in case of aggravation of a situation in the Sea of Azov as well as declared support of sanctions policy by the Austrian Foreign Minister K. Kneissl (Austria presides in the EU Council).

However, there are a lot of questions to the OSCE aside from that. One should ask, why monitoring mission was not admitted in due time to the place of MH-17 crush, as well as to the places of shootouts and Zakharchenko murder while the Russian intelligence agencies and the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation played there the master. By the way, daily reports of the OSCE Monitoring Mission constantly record Russian military equipment, weapons and military personnel in the combat zone.

Documents recorded movement of motor columns, particularly equipped with antiaircraft mounting, through uncontrolled sector of the Ukrainian-Russian border even as of October 23 this year. At the same time there were no official statements and claims from the OSCE in this regard.

Resignation of the Swiss official was not overlooked by ORDLO (Separate regions of Donetsk and Luhansk territories). D. Pushilin, leader of Donetsk terrorists, gave positive estimate to Hug’s performance and noted that positive moments of cooperation prevail over negative ones.

One should also bring to notice that should be a penultimate interview of Alexander Hug as the first deputy head of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine. The last was scheduled in temporarily occupied territory of Donbass. Such sequence serves as unambiguous hint about those whose allowance was worked out by this official of the international organization.

As we know, while working for the OSCE (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, the Gaza Strip) Hug maintained close contacts with Russian representatives in this organization. It is quite possible that the latter offered Hug support and assistance in further career growth within the organization or within other international authorities upon termination of his functions in the OSCE. We will keep an eye on it and get to know in the course of time.

It may also happen that Hug became a target for blackmail by the Russian intelligence agencies. As is known, in July, 2018 internal documents of the OSCE Mission to Ukraine, including briefs on mission members (personality traits, tendency to alcohol, financial position, interest in the opposite sex) and Hug’s communications profile. The OSCE Mission did not report the results of investigation.

We may only hope that the end of Hug’s commission in monitoring mission and his substitution with Mark Etherington from Great Britain will favorably affect objectivity and overall performance of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine. To the best of our knowledge, communications with the Russian intelligence agencies and Kremlin involve further consequences for engaged foreign politicians and heads of various international organizations. The new Chief Monitor of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine and other officials and representatives of influential international organizations should think thoroughly about the aftermath of “close” communications with the Russian Federation and their intelligence agencies. Short-term benefits can turn into much bigger losses for them and for the European safety.

Read More

After 14 long months of suppression to the release process of the Ukrainian hostages in Donbas, Kremlin has suddenly set about its continuation. Acting in a manner of the long-standing gangland tradition – making a problem first to simulate the assistance in its resolution thereafter – Putin has yet again illustrated extreme cynicism of the Russian aggressive policy.

Well, that is Russia that hit Ukraine, launched the war and occupied Ukrainian territories. Naturally, military aggression was accompanied by prisoner snatch, both military and civil. And now Russian leader broke into humanism.

Why then just now? It seems that after all, sanction mechanism affects on aggressor, showing signs of inevitability of considerable and even completely unacceptable financial and economic, reputational and diplomatic, political and humanitarian damage.

That’s exactly why Putin has organized pacifist performance to bring himself gentle and humane politician before the world, doing his best in behalf of peace in Ukraine and, therefore, in no way being an aggressor. He expresses commitment to exchange prisoners, accepts peacemakers, and personally coerces Zakharchenko and Plotnitskiy (leaders of separatist movements in Donbas) to humanism; he even settled almost everything with USA. Well, elections are coming soon…

Yet, if the motto ‘Krymnash’ (‘Crimea is ours’) has already become trivial and Novorossiya project got bogged down in war of positions, then Putin may become ‘a great peacemaker’ instead of ‘a gatherer of Russian lands’, which is also by no means bad.

What is more, the final part of the FIFA World Cup is coming, which starts just after the anticipated inauguration (who then still doubts?) of Vladimir Putin. Considering exceptional reputational importance of this event to demonstrate the whole world the mightiness and majesty of modern Russia and particularly of its leader, the risk of changing the hosting country shall be treated as unacceptable damage.

However, too many problems accompanies Russian championship, from quite doubtful story of awarding hosting rights for the World Cup by Russia and a range of doping scandals in Russian sport to their intervention in elections of other states. No wonder Putin attempts to present himself progressive, democratic leader and simply a good guy. That reminds situation before Sochi Olympic Games in 2014. At that time shortly before the Games Putin granted a pardon to Khodorkovsky and decriminalized PussyRiot. Though, following the Games closure, one by one Russia occupied and annexed Crimea and initiated massacre in Donbas.

Human lives are of utmost importance. Every chance shall be used for their rescue. If Putin’s declarations may help hostages come home, it should be welcomed. Yet, let’s wait till the next negotiations in Minsk on November 20th. They may clarify shall the change take place and what will be its terms.

Read More

In the midst of increasing political and economic pressure on Russia due to its aggressive expansionist policy the position of some European states, the leaders of which declare unequivocally their dissent from such Brussels’s policy, seems to be quite strange.

Hungary takes active part in lobbying lifting sanctions against Russia, which not only maintains top-level close ties with Russia, but also works for extending cooperation. Specific relationships between Budapest and Moscow are proven by the fact that Hungary became the only European state visited by Putin twice for the last half-a-year.

Frankly pro-Russian position of the Hungarian authorities has quite prosaic reasoning. Hungary depends heavily on supply of Russian energy products. In addition, Moscow peps up quite effectively (through financial means) the interest of Hungary in maintaining close friendly relations. Kremlin’s decision to provide Budapest with credit in the amount of 12 billion euro for construction of the Paks II Nuclear Power Plant serves as the striking example. The amount is quite impressive, isn’t it? The start of the construction with direct involvement of Russian companies is scheduled for January 2018. This scale project will afford Russia not only tie the operation of Hungary nuclear power plant to them and create additional workplaces for their citizens, but also market the technologies in the field of nuclear energy at European level. Obviously, in consideration of the economic support, Kremlin reckons on the Budapest’s loyalty in the issues of foreign policy and lobbying of Russia’s interests on the international scene, particularly in the issue of lifting sanctions.

Moscow not only buys Budapest for credits, but also efficiently uses historical claims of Hungary and growing revanchist spirits inside the state. Current Hungarian authorities have repeatedly declared their intention to turn the lands inhabited by ethnic Hungarians to the “parent body”. This fact unites Hungary and Russia.

Budapest does not transmit such ideas internationally, though they keep stirring up the idea of “Great Hungary” within the state attempting to attract the voters. Similarly to Moscow, in pursuing their aims they stake on strengthening the ties between Hungarians living abroad and their historical Motherland. Certainly, there’s nothing wrong that Hungarian authorities supports in every possible way and provide funds for public organisations, educational projects, infrastructure and medicine development, etc. at the areas of their compact settlement abroad. At the same time the fact that Hungary actively uses the ethnic factor not only for inviting workforce to the state, but also as one of the Budapest’s impact tools on bordering states competes attention. In this context the dual citizenship policy promoted by Hungarian authorities (it happens sometimes that issue of Hungarian passports rises to 100 thousand per month) cannot but cause concern of the authorities of neighboring states. Setting the pension registration mechanism for those citizens living abroad, Budapest gave an impetus to this process which resulted in aggressive growth of the number of ethnic Hungarians who have dual citizenship in Romania, Slovakia, Ukraine and Serbia.

All this happens amidst the growth of extreme right, pro-Russian and Euro-skeptic spirits as well as the government’s support of nationalistic Hungarian organisations abroad. Hungarian nationalists are the primary driving force for the implementation of the idea of “Great Hungary”. Particularly, they are actively committed to granting Hungarians the autonomy within the areas of their compact settlement in Ukrainian Zakarpattia, Székelyföld in Romanian Transylvania, Danube regions of Slovakia, Vojvodina in Serbia. Hungarian imperial ambitions stirring up by Kremlin, as well as growing autonomist aspirations among the Hungarian minority aggravate the outlined negative trends in the EU (British Brexit, reinforcement of the Rights in France and recent Catalonian demarche).

With due account for these conditions, as well as for Kremlin’s involvement into the destructive actions focused on disruption of the EU and NATO unity, the friendship between Budapest and Moscow does not seem to be so harmless.

Read More