For some reason, some political scientists think that the Ukrainian scenario is impossible in Belarus. Why is it impossible when even in the homeland of the "color revolutions", in the USA, these scenarios are successfully applied? This is exactly what we have been afraid of in recent years - the export of the "Maidan" to Minsk. And for some reason now it is not comme il faut to talk about Belarus in this context. But in places it coincides almost literally.
One thing is still encouraging, if in this situation there can be anything to please: so far there is no cave-like Russophobia on the part of the protesters, which was in Kiev from the very beginning. But this is only for now. It is not difficult to turn a protest towards anti-Russian protests. Even in Armenia, which is completely dependent on our country in terms of security, during the days of the revolution they tried to force slogans like “Russia, go home”.
The issue of Belarus has long been clearly on the Russian political agenda, but at the same time it was in a dormant mode. What I mean?
On the one hand, the total uncertainty of those very "fraternal relations", the Union State, the Russian language - after all, it was not customary in our country to say that, for example, signs on Belarusian streets for some reason, except in Belarusian, are duplicated English, while Russian is not just the language of the majority of the population, as in Ukraine, but also one of the state languages. Yes, this is a particular, but very characteristic illustrating what is happening.
But, on the other hand, the Victory Parade on May 9 in Minsk, of course, cannot but evoke sincere and kind feelings towards the people who sacredly cherish the memory of our common victory in the Great Patriotic War.
It is difficult to speak about Belarus unambiguously for many reasons. Yes, it is very difficult to ignore the eternal maneuvering of Lukashenka, in particular, on issues of principle for Russia, it is impossible not to remember the non-recognition of Crimea, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But at the same time, the arguments of the Belarusian side are understandable. I will quote Alexander Lukashenko:
“I was ready to sign a decree on the recognition of Abkhazia in the evening. At least that's what I told the Russians. Let's! But what will happen tomorrow? Javier Solana, former NATO Secretary General, he came to me, the dictator, in the evening, there was a long conversation, good - and he says: “If you recognize Abkhazia, then the first thing: we disconnect you from the banking system, you find yourself in complete isolation, then, then then ". Here he laid it out to me honestly and frankly. "
For small countries, the issue of economic survival is the first and most important one. Actually, like for any other country. Therefore, non-recognition of Crimea is a forced move by Lukashenka in the absence of any other opportunities.
Yes, of course, we can say and do say: a country is made strong by an unambiguous position, a strong ideology and an unyielding political general line. And, of course, it would be quite natural on our part to demand from Belarus a more intelligible and definite rhetoric, at least in matters of the international agenda, where today we should act as a united front. Considering that, at least on paper, the Union State exists.
But if we face the truth: do we ourselves have an unambiguous consensus regarding the Belarusian issue in the elites, and in society as well? Who is Belarus for us? Is it a fraternal country, a business partner, or, as some say, a "freeloader", or even a "suitcase without a handle"?
If now the position at the very top is quite definite - “brotherly people”, then where is the guarantee that tomorrow ultraliberal sentiments will not prevail on this delicate but fundamental issue for Russia?
After all, we have more than once experienced a change of course in relations with the same Belarus and with other countries. But for some subjects of international politics, such a change is fraught with the most serious consequences. Let's not forget that the people of Donbass, who once made a fundamental choice between the Bandera occupation and the Russian world, are still in the most uncertain state and, in fact, there has been a war there for the seventh year.
Can we blame Lukashenka so strongly in this situation for the fact that the degree of his maneuvering sometimes goes off scale? Maybe you should look in the mirror and ask yourself questions?
Of course, there is not the slightest doubt that what is happening in Belarus will certainly be used and is already being used by our enemies. NATO and the United States are not just not asleep - they are systematically and over the years investing in the "final solution of the Russian question" by further dismembering our country and finally rooting the collapse of the USSR. After all, territorial collapse is only half the battle. It is vital for them to divide us mentally. We must become peoples alien to each other, irreconcilably hostile. The elites of the former Soviet republics must completely reorient themselves to the West - then the Russian question will be resolved, they believe. Fortunately, this has not happened yet.
Our next and fundamental mistake is that we considered and for some reason continue to consider neighboring "brotherly" countries as aloof, and not as a legitimate territory of our influence, which is the absolute norm for strong and big powers. This alone will guarantee stability for both the powers themselves and their neighbors. Britain in the 19th century became a great power only after it completely pacified France (thanks to our support, we note that it did not prevent Britain and France from jointly attacking us in 1853). And the United States considers the entire American continent its "backyard" and was ready to unleash a nuclear war over Soviet missiles in Cuba.
And for some reason we look at our neighbors exclusively as sovereign states, in whose affairs we should not and cannot interfere under any circumstances. Not very far-sighted and completely shortsighted. Russia simply cannot afford to ignore the internal affairs of neighboring countries if it expects to strengthen its position as a strong and truly sovereign player in the international arena. Are examples of Ukraine, Georgia not enough for us?
Next in turn is Belarus, then Armenia, where our enemies have already taken their first steps. Everything, by the way, as quite frankly described in the corresponding plan, prepared by order of the US authorities RAND Corporation - the largest strategic research center working for the American government.
Conducted street protests, the construction of barricades, even without kneeling, it was not done - until, however, the protesters knelt in front of the security forces, begging them not to use force. But in the end the picture came out exactly what the puppeteers need. The necessary stereotypes are born in the minds of people. "Orange" technologies, tested more than once in recent years, are readable with the naked eye.
What is Lukashenka counting on now and what is his plan? It is impossible not to understand that the "Maidan" technologies inevitably lead to a change of power and inevitably there will be a Poroshenko in Belarus.
What will happen next with Belarus is obvious. An unambiguous change in foreign policy with a full orientation to the West, the ruin of the economy, further impoverishment of people, for which Russia will be blamed. Where does Alexander Grigorievich expect to hide in case the situation gets out of control? Should we take the situation to the extreme?
How to put things in order in Belarus in the current conditions, to calm people down is a very big question, to which there is no single answer. But an even bigger question: what will happen to Belarus without Russia? The answer is clear, though. Unfortunately, neither Belarus nor Russia will get any better from this.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.