Skip to main content

Looking after number one in Belarus

The last six months have seen an extraordinary change in the political direction of Belarus- sometimes known as the "last dictatorship in Europe". Alas, while "Transnistria", Azerbaijan, Armenia and even Russia are considered European, then Belarus' claim to fame is not as unique as all that.

Nevertheless the eccentric rule of Oleksander Lukashenka has continued. His fairly brutal security police continues to be called the KGB, and the flag of the country remains essentially that of the Soviet Republic. Yet, despite the extremely close relationship with Russia, including participating in the "Russian-Belarusian State Union", the country has managed to maintain its independence, despite continuing predictions of full union under the Kremlin. Historically the dictator has been extremely loyal, not to say slavish, to the Russian government.

It is the relationship between Mi'nsk and Moscow that has changed, rather than any great opening up of democracy in Belarus itself. A strange media war has opened up a huge divide between the two erstwhile partners of the Union. Russian media, under the firm control of Mr. Putin lambastes Lukashenka as a tyrant, while in Belarus, the criminal links of the Putin regime have been carefully documented by the local state media. Neither has Belarus played along with the Putinistas' annexation of the Georgian territories of Abhazia and South Ossetia- indeed, to the fury of the Kremlin, a full scale interview with President Saakhasvili was broadcast instead. A fire bomb attack took place this week on the Russian embassy in Mi'nsk- and though it seems clear that the Belarusian authorities were not involved, it has increased the hostility between the two countries to a far greater degree.

On an almost daily basis the Kremlin shows its displeasure with its former close ally. So, what is going on?

On the face of it, the dispute is the same poisonous mixture of Russian economic interests being thwarted combined with the personal contempt of Putin for the country's leader that led up to the crisis in Georgia. Various Russian business interests have been seeking greater control over the oil refining facilities in Belarus for some time, however the combination of competition between different Russian factions and the greater resources available in the West has put the control over the refineries in doubt. As in Lithuania, Russia is finding it very difficult to establish effective control over these downstream facilities. Despite Lukashenka's previous loyalty, he senses that the economic power of Russia is not what it was. In short, despite being full of sound and fury, the Russian Siloviki do not appear to have the power or the money to get the level of strategic control that they have demanded. Meanwhile, Lukashenka has discovered the value of playing the West off against Russia.

The interesting side effect has been that despite the continued detention of several political prisoners, many in the Belarusian opposition are privately saying that Lukashenka is now the bulwark of Belarusian independence against the Russians. Compromises that they would have barely considered are being actively discussed.

Lukashenka seems to be doing the impossible: he is getting the opposition to rally around his own- incompetent and brutal- regime as the better alternative to a Russian puppet state.

Belarus is not losing its capacity to surprise- and neither is Oleksander Lukashenka.


Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi