“Why does Belarus, being Russia's closest ally, recognize Crimea as Russian only de facto, but not de jure? Because Belarus, as a sovereign state, has its own relations with Ukraine, and its own integration mission. ” Military-political review
Since the entry of the Crimea into the Russian Federation, an interesting conflict has arisen concerning the exact borders of the so-called “Union State”. As is well known to all, in contrast to Afghanistan, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea and Syria, Belarus continues to officially consider Crimea as part of Ukraine, which creates quite ambiguous legal consequences.
For example, conscripts from the territory of Crimea are already serving in the army of the Russian Federation (which is logical) and, in principle, could get to the well-known West-2017 exercises. But from the point of view of “non-recognition” they are citizens of Ukraine mobilized by force into the Russian army. It is more interesting: it is quite logical that Crimea is included in the general financial system of Russia, and so part of the money that the authorities in Minsk are trying to get as a “help" can have quite Crimean roots. Back zrada ...
Further more. A person with a Crimean registration can fully occupy a high state post in Russia ... so what? How to communicate with the Belarusian authorities, for example? How to treat the official Minsk to Aksenov? Under the conditions of the “closest alliance”, so beloved by Belarusians? And such situations, you know, you can "throw a lot". In general, with strict adherence to this principle, the situation of “Eurovision 2017” is repeated in some way - when the artist who visited the Crimea automatically turned into a “criminal” from the point of view of the Ukrainian “authorities”.
Today it is quite clear that only the working variant on Crimea, which remained with Russia, is its full and final integration. No "other" options are considered. In principle, in the spring of 2014, it was still possible to offer something and negotiate something, but the West chose an exclusively confrontational strategy, so after the ATO and the sanctions, something has to be said (and such options are sometimes attacked) late.
For Russia, it is completely meaningless. And it is here that the “international” position of Belarus in the Crimea creates a very serious obstacle for the relations Minsk-Moscow. And over time, this "obstacle" will only increase. As has already been said, the so-called “international community” could well “bargain” around the Crimea and its recognition, but this had to be done before and instead of sanctions. In their classical style, they want “to eat the cake and have it available”, that is, to impose sanctions and “bargain” about the future of Crimea.
This one historical Mr. Lavrov had in mind the conflict when he stated that the issue with Crimea was closed and would no longer be discussed. Before It was necessary to discuss - in the spring / summer 2014 of the year. Instead, sanctions were imposed - in response to the Crimea. Well, that's all - in the calculation.
So, the global problem of the Belarusian state is the complete absence of government officials / diplomats / analysts at the international level. In Kiev, everything was of course bad, but not so much. But in Minsk it is so much. There are no competent professionals, in principle, able to at least understand the situation and calculate its possible consequences. At least understand.
Do you know this “classic” phrase: “this question should be discussed with a good lawyer”? With diplomacy it is still worse - good diplomats come across much less often than lawyers. More rare profession. So with the Crimea: Lukashenko is just did not understandwhat is happening at all, what happened and what the consequences will be, but there was no one to tell him. And the inclusion of the Crimea in the Russian Federation and the categorical non-recognition of this fact by the “allied Byelorussia” had very serious and very far-reaching consequences.
And the negative will go "incrementally." Moreover, little is already dependent on the actions and decisions of specific people. The return of the Crimea was a kind of Rubicon, and the decision whether or not to cross it was super-fundamental. So, in their time, the Rubicon crossed both Caesar and his entire army ... Mr. Lukashenko, if I will be allowed such an analogy, plays the role of a particularly clever “centurion”, which, from “legal” considerations, decided not to cross Rubicon with "Not" barking "... but this does not mean that he is an enemy of Caesar! Not in the least!
Perhaps I am mistaken, but in 2014 the year after Christ, Belarusians generally decided to stay on the “Tom”, the safe bank and see what the whole adventure would end with ... And the “adventure” went on as usual, striking everyone with unexpected turns of events ... Here are just RB her people and leadership in all these events on the side Russia did not take part. That, of course, had its well-defined results.
Already commonplace was the assertion that Americans in the Crimea were particularly interested in the possibility of "removing" the Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol and putting their ships there. And this created giant basing problems for Russia and called into question Syria’s aid / supply of Assad troops. Those. this was the “big politics” and this was very remotely related to Ukraine itself. Gas transit from Russia, the base of the Black Sea Fleet - this is what made Ukraine a “participant” of the Great Game, or rather, its playing field.
In the understanding of the Belarusian “politicians”, “analysts” and “journalists” there is no Big Game, there are no specific selfish interests of the same West, but there is a solid “international law” and there are some “principles and values”. And the logic of events in the Crimea / Donbas is quite simple: Russia “quarreled” with Ukraine. That is, their political level is such that they quite sincerely think (or diligently pretend to believe) of Mr. Poroshenko as an independent politician, legitimate president. all Ukraine.
That is, DNR / LC “automatically” falls under its jurisdiction. Yes, Lukashenko sent "help" to the Donbas, through Mr. Poroshenko sent. By the way, if Poroshenko is considered “equal” by Lukashenko in Minsk (and we know who is “leading” Ukraine), then there can be no talk of any “equal” dialogue between Minsk and Moscow. Purely mathematically impossible. If anything, then in Russia “people equal to Poroshenko by status” are Vovan and Lexus ... And in Belarus, the integral president of Belarus ...
So the very “integration” that was talked about for a long time on the example of the “Union State”, in the case of the Crimea, went surprisingly easily and quickly. That is, if compared with Belarus. Crimea is a part of Russia economically, financially, politically and militarily. Russian combat aircraft without any "negotiations" are transferred to the Crimean airfields, and the Crimean recruits serve in the Russian army. Everything is fair.
The problem with Belarusians is that they also want to use all the advantages of being "inside" Russia, but they absolutely do not want to bear the risks / pull the strap. Common market - yes, uniform energy prices - yes, common labor market - yes! Confrontation with NATO? And we are peaceful people and we don’t want to “bark” with anyone ... In principle, this very “position” has crystallized so clearly and is so understandable to everyone that it is an occasion for numerous jokes.
Lukashenko’s problem lies precisely in this: since the crisis of the 2013 / 2014 winter, Russia has greatly changed. In principle, it has changed since 2000, but at first these events were progressive, the changes slowly accumulated ... And today Russia is a completely different country than 18 years ago. By the way, Ukraine-2000 and Ukraine 2018 are also two very different countries. There, too, changes gradually accumulated, then a breakthrough occurred, only if Russia is at war with ISIS, then Ukraine is just as resolutely killing its own citizens.
But Lukashenko has not changed at all, as well as the foreign policy of Belarus, as well as the awareness of the political realities in this country. Russia -2000 has no special choice, except for “sluggish” integration with Belarus, by definition, but Russia-2018 is a completely different country. That is, Mr. Lukashenko spent the year 22 on a high-quality imitation of the “integration process”, and then in a few years the Crimea “whistling” entered Russia as a region ...
It's funny, isn’t it? And no “integration programs” were required: once - and in queens! But Belarusians have been thinking and thinking for a quarter of a century: is it worth it or not? On the example of the Crimea / Belarus, all the advantages of a single state and all the minuses of some muddy abstruse pseudo schemes are clearly visible.
The “one big country” scheme works: towards the Crimeans (despite all the problems brought in), the attitude is extremely positive: we are one people. But for Belarusians and Belarus for the same time, a completely different attitude was formed, the scheme “one budget - two foreign policies” is not workable even once.
To the question of why different gas prices in the “one union state” can be safely answered that, for example, SG citizens from Russia are actively going to the war in Syria, but the Belarusians are not going anywhere and see this as a particular problem. All questions on gas, finance, living standards are perfectly solved within one States, but to help some muddy "Allied neutrals" wanting a little.
There is a version that a negative attitude towards Muscovites began to take shape in the years of the Second World War, when up to half of Moscow recruits (for obvious, good reasons!) Received a “reservation”. The people, however, did not understand this. That is, the negative began to form even to the Estonians ... namely, the Muscovites. No nationalism. Dear, why don't you go to war? Is this not your war? Clear.
Russian servicemen participated in the conflict on the territory of the SAR, Russian ichthamnets were actively present in the Donbas. Banal facts. And yes, if you don’t like Russian ichthamnets much and you consider their actions “criminal”, then explain “for one toast” what the American troops are doing in Syria. Everything is quite simple and trite both there and there. Well, or need to be neater proclamation...
So, for some reason, unlike the gas issue, no one in Minsk hit himself on the forehead: “We are citizens of the Union State, we should not give up ours!” There wasn’t this, but everyone sincerely “marveled” at the gas price delta: “ But we have one, the Allied (!) State! And the prices are different, mess! "
All the talk about the fact that the Republic of Belarus pursues its “own”, “peace-loving” policy sounds quite frivolous: the Belarusians simply do not have the resources to conduct its politicians, not that scale. The approach is simpler: “I'll get up for military registration, but I won't go to war.”
For Belarus, “trade and economic relations with Ukraine are critically important and the absence of Western sanctions?” Is fine, just fine. And how important are trade and economic relations with Russia and “credit” relations with Belarus for Belarus? Critically or not critically? And if the question is put exactly that way? What if have to (and already have to) choose? About this murky “Union State” Lukashenka already quite officially asked why Belarus is in the Union State with Russia, and not with Ukraine? This is after he sympathized with the "Ukrainian struggle for independence."
No matter how unpleasant it is to talk about it (and this does not correspond to the official position), but in the Donbas Russians and Ukrainians are at war with each other (he said, and he himself became frightened! He already choked). There is such a view on things (not the fact that it is the only correct one). You can talk for a long time about some kind of “junta”, some “bad fascists” and “extremists”, that the Right Sector is gutarit in Russian, but in the Donbas Russians and Ukrainians kill each other.
Normal such inter-ethnic conflict. It can take a long time to turn a blind eye to it, but then it’s absolutely incomprehensible how the devil the Ukrainian army has been fighting for so long. She is not fighting for “oligarchs”, she is fighting against the Russian inhabitants of Ukraine. It is for this that Ukrainians are ready to “nibble the earth.” And interethnic conflicts (for example, Central Asia / Transcaucasia / Yugoslavia) can go on for a very long time, very mercilessly and completely pointless.
With our official “internationalism”, we shy away from this truth, like a nun from pornography, but this does not change the essence of the matter. Although semi-officially the same Peskov said that "he hopes (!) That Donbas militias will not have problems with shells." Such is the "friendship."
"Ukraine should become a full member of the Union State"? Today, about this (when the Ukrainian artillery hits the residential areas of Donbass) only a madman can speak. First of all, the very population of Russia, whose opinion, as usual, is overlooked by many, will be categorically against.
In a strange (unpleasant!) Manner, the Ukrainian “revolution of dignity” wore quite a distinct ethnic character So, once again about the fact that “the people rebelled”: for some reason, everyone who “analyzes” Putin’s aggression, categorically ignores the fact that, first, the “revolution” was carried out with the full and open support of the EU / US ; and secondly, the “revolution” was frankly nationalistic in nature, that is, it reflected the interests of the Ukrainian nationalists.
Is the EU / US for you “the whole world”? Well, these are already your problems ... Here is a clear discrepancy - for some, such an obvious external intervention is unacceptable, for others it is “what the doctor prescribed”. And as a matter of fact, initially these are two absolutely incompatible positions. At the same time, “arguing further” is absolutely pointless. But, in general, logically, if overt intervention from the West is “normal,” then we must be prepared for the same intervention from the East, albeit in a different form.
Further, it should be noted that Ukraine (almost like the USSR) was multinational by the state. And we must admit that the Ukrainians and Russians are two different nations. We don’t have pluses from attempts to play “one people”, only minuses. The recognition (from the very beginning) that the conflict in Donbas is inter-ethnic in nature was, in fact, much more correct politically. In Ukraine, there are Russians, and there are Ukrainians, and, in the wake of Ukrainian propaganda, both recognize some kind of “One Ukraine” and try to talk with “one Ukrainian people” a rather strange thing for us. There is no "single Ukrainian people."
The point here is not in “genetic purity”, but in the psychology completely formed among a certain part of the Ukrainian population, which is categorically hostile to Russia. What is there to “catch” is absolutely incomprehensible. In the coming decades, Russians and Ukrainians will obviously not become “their own”. Therefore, the struggle for "all of Ukraine" on the part of Russia today looks rather strange. On the part of Belarus?
Donetsk and Lugansk are quite obviously Russian regions oriented towards Russia. That's why they are focused on Moscow, because the Russians, and not because the “economy”, which we now love so much to trump. The “frank debilism” of the analysis of Ukraine in Russia is precisely because, for “politically correct” reasons, it only pushes it into the economy, completely ignoring the ethnic factor. So the "economy" is not just a magic wand, it does not solve all problems. Estonia is frankly bankrupt, but does not want to cooperate with any Russia.
Crimea returned to Russia not only because of the politically correct official reason for “fascism in Kiev”, but because the Russian region (and there “at least stones from the sky”). And Crimeans do not have any problems with being inside Russia. Unlike being inside Ukraine. In the end, following the historical logic, Ukraine has become a nationalist state, hostile to ethnic minorities and controlled from abroad.
And just by the example of the Crimea / Donbass in Belarus, there is a movement in opposite directions: if some want exclusively to Russia and do not separate themselves from it, then “smart talk” about a special historical heritage and even “their integration mission” is very popular with others. ".
At the same time, the Republic of Belarus does not have any serious strategic resources or even there status / influence at the level of Poland or especially of Turkey. No matter how offensive it is, integration with Ukraine (which is already completely impossible) gave theoretically There is a lot of Russia, nothing like integration with Belarus can give (the scale of the country is not the same). But the claims and requests from the official Minsk are no less ...
Some kind of emotional affinity for people who, for 25 years of independence never did not support Russia in a difficult situation, also for obvious reasons, is absent. That is, in fact, the so-called "Union State" has become obsolete. For him, there are no more rational ones (Belarus is a country in all respects problematic, but why unite with those who have some problems on the agenda?), Nor emotional (Russian actions in Ukraine / in Syria did not meet with great support from Belarusians) reasons. This fabulous design "did not pass the test of strength" during the Ukrainian conflict, if that. During the Syrian, too, did not pass.
That is, if the official Minsk today still needs something from Russia, then it is necessary to invent something, offer it and go to Moscow to come to an agreement. Pulling out the mummy of the “Union State”, waving it and talking about some “single gas prices” is a sign of frank political lack of culture. While the “integration process” was going on (by leaps and bounds), the political situation in Europe and in the world (dramatically) changed, and all these pathetic attempts turned out to be a complete anachronism, therefore, we must, in principle, overestimate our “allied relations” and act on the basis of current political realities.