Lukashenko, “zmgars” and the Union State
Considering the numerous political conflicts between the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation, studying the aggressive rhetoric of the Belarusian “ideologues”, sooner or later you have the feeling that in order for the picture to come into focus, you need to twist the knob a little. Just missing something without it. Without this, the picture is completely delusional. An independent state with its own flag, emblem, anthem, president and state. the boundaries of something there requires from Moscow.
In fact, “planning-loss-making” Belarus had to be part of the Russian Federation, but not by regions and districts, but, so to speak, entirely, en masse. While preserving, of course, certain authorities and on very specially prescribed conditions. But enter into the composition. No other way. No illusions: everyone pulls a blanket over himself, and Belarusian elites are no exception. But “to defend the interests of the Belarusian people” was necessary in the image and likeness of the Chechen people, that is, as part of Russia. Could Russia at the beginning of zero refuse it? With all the desire - no.
Well, what's the difference, you ask? And the difference, oddly enough, is fundamental! Imagine all the grievances and all the rhetoric that Belarusian politicians and journalists love so much to show us, but within the framework of Russia. The picture changes, right? Is striking? After all, if Belarus is a part of Russia, then all the political, economic and ideological “claims” acquire a completely different sound?
They, so to speak, acquire a super-power, armor-piercing character, and immediately. If Belarus is part of the Russian Federation, then all those conversations about oligarchs and social justice would have sounded very different. You just need to be able to "figure out" parallel options. And the picture of events looks quite different.
About the former "Kremlin prospects" of the main potato breeder of the planet has been written enough, we will not dwell on this. But I must say that Lukashenko (at least Lukashenko-1994) was not a fool. Far from it. As Lukashenko sample 2000-th year. The obvious goal of rapprochement with Russia and the creation of the Union State is to get the very same subsidies from the Russian budget and access to the Russian market.
And how else could this be done? Without the loss of sovereignty? Tell that! RB model 2018, the planned-unprofitable - this is not propaganda, it is a sad and obvious fact. Exactly the same situation occurred in the 1994 year. That is, this “country of Limonium” was unprofitable at the time Mr. Lukashenko came to power, and so it remained. But an unprofitable Russian region means big subsidies, and an unprofitable small independent country means “Bangladesh” for its citizens.
Mr. Lukashenko signed a document on the creation of a Union State not for some abstract reasons why love for Russia or timid hope for the Kremlin throne, everything is much simpler: he needed money, a lot of money. And to arrange such a transfer outside the framework of a single state was extremely difficult. Hence the "Union State", created mainly under Russian subsidies.
In principle, a reasonable and thoughtful move. Politics, it is this: many strange things make you do voluntarily. Here we must understand one more thing: Belarusian propaganda never does not even speak a piece of truth. Solid virtual reality. All these years, the existence of the Belarusian “state” was very closely tied to Russian resources, but this was most actively ignored, denied, and bogged down. Only problems related to obtaining those resources were voiced. Therefore, a hostile-ironic attitude towards Russia has been largely formed in the mass Belarusian consciousness.
That is, the importance of the Russian market (including the labor market) and the Russian subsidies for the “independent Polesia power” is understandable to most of the Russians, but it is absolutely not clear to the Belarusians. And because they have to talk about it is simply not accepted. As a result, a kind of psychological barrier is formed: people fundamentally do not understand and do not want to understand things that are very important for their existence.
Like it or not Belarusians, but to this day their country is completely economically dependent on Russia. From the economic point of view, this is a very backward and very subsidized Russian region. But in the mass Belarusian consciousness many years of propaganda created a shining image of an independent, "sovereign" power, which is knee-deep in the sea. Belarusians behave so confidently in the political field (and so suicidal!) For this very reason: there’s no real picture of events and correlation of forces in my head, but an enticing propaganda picture. In fact, in our modern day Belarus, we actively compete with propaganda pictures. No more and no less.
You must admit that it is absolutely useless to argue with people actively consuming Russian resources (and whose existence without this consumption is fundamentally impossible) and at the same time living in virtual euro-reality. No, of course, the Belarusians themselves consider this situation temporary and sometime (years through 500) plan to have a modern “independent” from Russia Euro-economy. Someday, tomorrow. Or the day after tomorrow, or for Christmas.
It is clear that the Belarusian leadership owns the situation much better, this explains today the nervous behavior of this very Belarusian leadership. So, once again: in theory, for the creation of the very Union State, Russia would sacrifice resources (necessary for its own citizens!), Belarus would have to sacrifice part of its sovereignty (theoretically!). RB simply had nothing to sacrifice. And the so-called Union State did not take place for one simple reason: Lukashenko did not want to invest anything in it, absolutely nothing.
That is, with the mind, he understood that such magical transfers of billions of dollars just do not happen, but de facto ... did not want to sacrifice even a small part of sovereignty. And that means that Russia had to pay billions in exchange for what? In exchange for a fake in the form of the Union State? Existing solely in the inflamed virtual reality? And the Belarusians are absolutely sure that the Union State is only a form of relations with Russia (kisses in exchange for billions). Belarus itself exists completely from it separately and independently. And this “Union State” doesn’t affect the relations between Belarus and the West in any way.
When you try to open the cards and find out what kind of nonsense this is, a cry immediately sounds that Russia is obliged to pay this money, otherwise Belarusians will immediately go to the West. There is an ambush in what: so someone, and the modern Belarusian "elitist" in the West just do not wait. Well, except in the Hague ... That is, the problem is not just in Lukashenko, the problem in general ... in general. A big problem. This turn to the West is certainly possible, and it is a good one. news... the bad news is that this will occur largely according to the Ukrainian scenario, which includes a massive "fight against corruption", "the revolutionary withdrawal of improperly registered property" and ... the flights of yesterday's managers from the upper floors of high-rise buildings.
What do you want? I understand that the current "elite" of Belarus expects to "agree." Well, the former "regionals" have already "agreed" ... and even the unsinkable Kolomoisky. As practice has shown, in the West, even Abramovich was not expected. And even Berezovsky ... But the guys "with heavy epaulets" from Belarus will be accepted there as relatives. Strictly speaking, who will be the “guarantor” of compliance with the agreements? Russia? And why does she need it? That is, let us imagine that the agreements were “reached”, and the authorities in the Republic of Belarus changed, and the “vector” changed finally ... and then, and then very unpleasant surprises will begin for virtually all the "defendants", about something that "agreed" with shining West.
No, not the CIA, in no way, the radicals who came to power will start pressing them. And for all the accusations and cries for help, their Western "friends" will only smile and shrug. Once upon a time, very long ago, Mr. Gorbachev agreed on the non-expansion of NATO to the east ...
That is, “go under the West” - it is, of course, theoretically possible. At the same time, the leaders of the Republic of Belarus expect to become part of the western elite, while ordinary Belarusians are very much counting on the European standard of living. "Break off" to be the one and the other (Ukrainian example here to help). Someone will go to a happy flight to high stars, and someone will go to draw up a mortgage on the rent ...
Well, then, you ask, why does the negative example of Ukraine not affect them? And everything is very simple: biased consciousness as a result of decades of hysterical Russophobic propaganda. Propaganda is actually a terrible thing, it is capable of distorting consciousness, and splitting it, or even roll it into asphalt. That is, people in Minsk and Kiev, year after year, like a nail in the board, were hammered into the head that Russia was bad.
According to the method of Professor Pavlov grind. As a matter of fact, yes, even among Ukrainians and Belarusians younger than a certain age, this very reflex is completely worked out for itself (well, propaganda has already entered the consciousness of even those who spread it). Moreover, even that factthat Ukrainian / Belarusian enterprises lived at the expense of Russian orders, and Belarusian / Ukrainian apartments were heated with cheap Russian gas, did not affect the situation in any way. Overall story and culture too. Russia is bad, very bad.
Here I’ll say one politically incorrect thing, frankly speaking, anti-people and anti-democratic. In fact, it is always the elites that rule, and this happens for one simple reason: most people do not like and do not know how to think, they only reproduce what they have been thrust into their heads time after time. Therefore, if anti-Russian propaganda has been rampant in the country for decades, do not wait for a special friendship with it, this is normal. And why did you violinist poisoned, fiends?
Therefore, real life and the “right ideological picture” both in Belarus and in Ukraine diverge very seriously. A joke in Russia appeared like this: “Aggressor, give me money”. Or so: “Neighbor, give me some food, otherwise there is nothing for me to spoil under your door.”
That is, with Ukraine it was somewhat simpler: they did not consider the option of a certain common state in principle and stupidly demanded pennies for beautiful, arrogant eyes. But the Belarusians sincerely believe that within the framework of a certain mythical Union State they are obliged to pay all bills and close all problems. That is, the approach is “pragmatic”: yes, we know that Russia is the source of all misfortunes, but let it pay.
Anyway, it could have worked. On one condition: the Republic of Belarus was supposed to actually be part of Russia. Then the gap would be fundamentally impossible, and blackmail is very successful. Even no one would have allowed the GDP to “scatter government lands”. But the Belarusian elites chose the strangest option: having full political sovereignty and pursuing an obviously anti-Russian policy, constantly express discontent and threaten with "withdrawal." It was with such attitudes from Moscow that, sooner or later, should be heard in response: well, leave ... a tailwind. The motor ship "Union State" was painted strictly on one side: Russia financed Minsk and provided the market. As already mentioned, the official Minsk has not invested anything in this project, absolutely nothing.
But no, why: Belarusians are the most active (sometimes even too much) exploiting all the capabilities of the Union State, explaining to themselves and others that it’s “very beneficial” for Russia itself to drag such a group of pro-Western citizens on the hump with a very good appetite ...
Any blackmail on the part of Belarus today completely ineffective just for the simple reason that Russia has practically nothing to lose here - and formally, and in fact we have two independent states. Any threats that “terrible zmagars” come to power instead of “pro-Russian” Lukashenko rest on the simple fact that during the Syrian-Ukrainian conflict the difference between “pro-Russian” Lukashenko and NATO Grybauskaite was not so fundamental. In general, today, according to the degree of political "usefulness" for the Kremlin, Mr. Lukashenko can be compared with Mr. Yushchenko (remember this?).
True, for all his Russophobia, Yushchenko was openly open to Putin and did not insult Russia (unlike Lukashenko). But the non-recognition of South Ossetia / Abkhazia, the open support of the Kiev junta and the supply of weapons to both the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the “Syrian opposition”, the massive Russophobic propaganda inside the country ... the non-recognition of Crimea as part of Russia. And yes, numerous contemptuous and insulting remarks about the Russian Federation. The trial of the "pro-Russian bloggers" and the extradition of a Russian citizen to Azerbaijan ...
And here there is a very inconvenient question: what is principled is the difference between “pro-Russian Lukashenko” and possible “anti-Russian-Zmagarov” rulers of sovereign Belarus? What is the difference for Russia? Lukashenko defiantly was friends with the junta at the time of the active phase of the conflict in the Donbas and immediately ran to hug Erdogan after he had shot down the Russian “drying”.
So what could be the point for Russia to spend billions on maintaining its regime and on the warm apartments of Minsk dwellers in winter? Zmagars would be friends with the junta in the same way ... although they could have digged! Before 2008, and even before 2014, the illusion was preserved that, at least, Lukashenka was "better than this pro-Western opposition." Today it is by no means obvious. Of principle there is no difference. "Pink snot" under the order about the "trenches and twinning" in the billions of dollars is clearly not pulled.
Gentlemen of Belarusians, we were so frightened by Smagars for so long that we have already ceased to fear them. In the end, the devil is not so terrible as he is painted: such a choice (for example, Mr. Drakakhrust at the head of Belarus) will certainly be accepted both in the West and in a significant part of the population of the Republic of Belarus, and Russia will finally be able to go into great pragmatism in relations with Minsk. That is to relieve yourself of these very billions of expenses. In the end, Mr. Drakokhrust (what a surname!), Like the overwhelming number of "oppov", a person is much more cultural and intelligent than the former. chairman of the state farm from Shklovsky district. That is, he will not become a “friend of Russia”, but even so frankly he will not be able to be rude (by nature, a gentle person).
And for the money he will go ... to the city, famous for its cabbages. Which is certainly not bad. Here, wondering when RB during the conflict 2011-2018. it’s not the man with the surname Lukashenko who heads, but the man with the surname Drakokhrust, I think that we wouldn’t have seen such blatant turns on bends (he is a gentle and cautious man, like most Belarusian "oppov").
Why do we need in a neighboring country support one russophobe in the fight against others? Meaning? The trouble with Lukashenka’s regime is that for Russia there isn’t much difference today about how exactly the name of the head of Belarus will sound. No longer. And Mr. Drakokhrust is interesting to the author because he was going to buy oil in Lithuania, and to replace the ruble by ... thaler. I would very much like to see all this (how a man by the name of Drakokhrust buys oil on the Lithuanian border in exchange for the newly printed Belarusian thalers).
And the problem with Lukashenka is that, over the course of a quarter of a century, our Belarusians began to perceive his presidencies as scandalous, quarrelsome and aggressive. So the trouble is that Mr. Lukashenko does not have a Belarusian national character. Because no aggression / scandal in this character is not present initially. Belarusians are peaceful people. In other words, Lukashenka got Belarusians most of all with his endless political circus.
In general, the aforesaid politician of the rules is so “great” that today even the option of a complete and final “divorce” and the coming to power in Minsk of a pro-Western oppositionist begins to seem quite a good way out. After Lukashenko any The scenario is starting to seem interesting.
In fact, “planning-loss-making” Belarus had to be part of the Russian Federation, but not by regions and districts, but, so to speak, entirely, en masse. While preserving, of course, certain authorities and on very specially prescribed conditions. But enter into the composition. No other way. No illusions: everyone pulls a blanket over himself, and Belarusian elites are no exception. But “to defend the interests of the Belarusian people” was necessary in the image and likeness of the Chechen people, that is, as part of Russia. Could Russia at the beginning of zero refuse it? With all the desire - no.
Well, what's the difference, you ask? And the difference, oddly enough, is fundamental! Imagine all the grievances and all the rhetoric that Belarusian politicians and journalists love so much to show us, but within the framework of Russia. The picture changes, right? Is striking? After all, if Belarus is a part of Russia, then all the political, economic and ideological “claims” acquire a completely different sound?
They, so to speak, acquire a super-power, armor-piercing character, and immediately. If Belarus is part of the Russian Federation, then all those conversations about oligarchs and social justice would have sounded very different. You just need to be able to "figure out" parallel options. And the picture of events looks quite different.
About the former "Kremlin prospects" of the main potato breeder of the planet has been written enough, we will not dwell on this. But I must say that Lukashenko (at least Lukashenko-1994) was not a fool. Far from it. As Lukashenko sample 2000-th year. The obvious goal of rapprochement with Russia and the creation of the Union State is to get the very same subsidies from the Russian budget and access to the Russian market.
And how else could this be done? Without the loss of sovereignty? Tell that! RB model 2018, the planned-unprofitable - this is not propaganda, it is a sad and obvious fact. Exactly the same situation occurred in the 1994 year. That is, this “country of Limonium” was unprofitable at the time Mr. Lukashenko came to power, and so it remained. But an unprofitable Russian region means big subsidies, and an unprofitable small independent country means “Bangladesh” for its citizens.
Mr. Lukashenko signed a document on the creation of a Union State not for some abstract reasons why love for Russia or timid hope for the Kremlin throne, everything is much simpler: he needed money, a lot of money. And to arrange such a transfer outside the framework of a single state was extremely difficult. Hence the "Union State", created mainly under Russian subsidies.
In principle, a reasonable and thoughtful move. Politics, it is this: many strange things make you do voluntarily. Here we must understand one more thing: Belarusian propaganda never does not even speak a piece of truth. Solid virtual reality. All these years, the existence of the Belarusian “state” was very closely tied to Russian resources, but this was most actively ignored, denied, and bogged down. Only problems related to obtaining those resources were voiced. Therefore, a hostile-ironic attitude towards Russia has been largely formed in the mass Belarusian consciousness.
That is, the importance of the Russian market (including the labor market) and the Russian subsidies for the “independent Polesia power” is understandable to most of the Russians, but it is absolutely not clear to the Belarusians. And because they have to talk about it is simply not accepted. As a result, a kind of psychological barrier is formed: people fundamentally do not understand and do not want to understand things that are very important for their existence.
Like it or not Belarusians, but to this day their country is completely economically dependent on Russia. From the economic point of view, this is a very backward and very subsidized Russian region. But in the mass Belarusian consciousness many years of propaganda created a shining image of an independent, "sovereign" power, which is knee-deep in the sea. Belarusians behave so confidently in the political field (and so suicidal!) For this very reason: there’s no real picture of events and correlation of forces in my head, but an enticing propaganda picture. In fact, in our modern day Belarus, we actively compete with propaganda pictures. No more and no less.
You must admit that it is absolutely useless to argue with people actively consuming Russian resources (and whose existence without this consumption is fundamentally impossible) and at the same time living in virtual euro-reality. No, of course, the Belarusians themselves consider this situation temporary and sometime (years through 500) plan to have a modern “independent” from Russia Euro-economy. Someday, tomorrow. Or the day after tomorrow, or for Christmas.
It is clear that the Belarusian leadership owns the situation much better, this explains today the nervous behavior of this very Belarusian leadership. So, once again: in theory, for the creation of the very Union State, Russia would sacrifice resources (necessary for its own citizens!), Belarus would have to sacrifice part of its sovereignty (theoretically!). RB simply had nothing to sacrifice. And the so-called Union State did not take place for one simple reason: Lukashenko did not want to invest anything in it, absolutely nothing.
That is, with the mind, he understood that such magical transfers of billions of dollars just do not happen, but de facto ... did not want to sacrifice even a small part of sovereignty. And that means that Russia had to pay billions in exchange for what? In exchange for a fake in the form of the Union State? Existing solely in the inflamed virtual reality? And the Belarusians are absolutely sure that the Union State is only a form of relations with Russia (kisses in exchange for billions). Belarus itself exists completely from it separately and independently. And this “Union State” doesn’t affect the relations between Belarus and the West in any way.
When you try to open the cards and find out what kind of nonsense this is, a cry immediately sounds that Russia is obliged to pay this money, otherwise Belarusians will immediately go to the West. There is an ambush in what: so someone, and the modern Belarusian "elitist" in the West just do not wait. Well, except in the Hague ... That is, the problem is not just in Lukashenko, the problem in general ... in general. A big problem. This turn to the West is certainly possible, and it is a good one. news... the bad news is that this will occur largely according to the Ukrainian scenario, which includes a massive "fight against corruption", "the revolutionary withdrawal of improperly registered property" and ... the flights of yesterday's managers from the upper floors of high-rise buildings.
What do you want? I understand that the current "elite" of Belarus expects to "agree." Well, the former "regionals" have already "agreed" ... and even the unsinkable Kolomoisky. As practice has shown, in the West, even Abramovich was not expected. And even Berezovsky ... But the guys "with heavy epaulets" from Belarus will be accepted there as relatives. Strictly speaking, who will be the “guarantor” of compliance with the agreements? Russia? And why does she need it? That is, let us imagine that the agreements were “reached”, and the authorities in the Republic of Belarus changed, and the “vector” changed finally ... and then, and then very unpleasant surprises will begin for virtually all the "defendants", about something that "agreed" with shining West.
No, not the CIA, in no way, the radicals who came to power will start pressing them. And for all the accusations and cries for help, their Western "friends" will only smile and shrug. Once upon a time, very long ago, Mr. Gorbachev agreed on the non-expansion of NATO to the east ...
That is, “go under the West” - it is, of course, theoretically possible. At the same time, the leaders of the Republic of Belarus expect to become part of the western elite, while ordinary Belarusians are very much counting on the European standard of living. "Break off" to be the one and the other (Ukrainian example here to help). Someone will go to a happy flight to high stars, and someone will go to draw up a mortgage on the rent ...
Well, then, you ask, why does the negative example of Ukraine not affect them? And everything is very simple: biased consciousness as a result of decades of hysterical Russophobic propaganda. Propaganda is actually a terrible thing, it is capable of distorting consciousness, and splitting it, or even roll it into asphalt. That is, people in Minsk and Kiev, year after year, like a nail in the board, were hammered into the head that Russia was bad.
According to the method of Professor Pavlov grind. As a matter of fact, yes, even among Ukrainians and Belarusians younger than a certain age, this very reflex is completely worked out for itself (well, propaganda has already entered the consciousness of even those who spread it). Moreover, even that factthat Ukrainian / Belarusian enterprises lived at the expense of Russian orders, and Belarusian / Ukrainian apartments were heated with cheap Russian gas, did not affect the situation in any way. Overall story and culture too. Russia is bad, very bad.
Here I’ll say one politically incorrect thing, frankly speaking, anti-people and anti-democratic. In fact, it is always the elites that rule, and this happens for one simple reason: most people do not like and do not know how to think, they only reproduce what they have been thrust into their heads time after time. Therefore, if anti-Russian propaganda has been rampant in the country for decades, do not wait for a special friendship with it, this is normal. And why did you violinist poisoned, fiends?
Therefore, real life and the “right ideological picture” both in Belarus and in Ukraine diverge very seriously. A joke in Russia appeared like this: “Aggressor, give me money”. Or so: “Neighbor, give me some food, otherwise there is nothing for me to spoil under your door.”
That is, with Ukraine it was somewhat simpler: they did not consider the option of a certain common state in principle and stupidly demanded pennies for beautiful, arrogant eyes. But the Belarusians sincerely believe that within the framework of a certain mythical Union State they are obliged to pay all bills and close all problems. That is, the approach is “pragmatic”: yes, we know that Russia is the source of all misfortunes, but let it pay.
Anyway, it could have worked. On one condition: the Republic of Belarus was supposed to actually be part of Russia. Then the gap would be fundamentally impossible, and blackmail is very successful. Even no one would have allowed the GDP to “scatter government lands”. But the Belarusian elites chose the strangest option: having full political sovereignty and pursuing an obviously anti-Russian policy, constantly express discontent and threaten with "withdrawal." It was with such attitudes from Moscow that, sooner or later, should be heard in response: well, leave ... a tailwind. The motor ship "Union State" was painted strictly on one side: Russia financed Minsk and provided the market. As already mentioned, the official Minsk has not invested anything in this project, absolutely nothing.
But no, why: Belarusians are the most active (sometimes even too much) exploiting all the capabilities of the Union State, explaining to themselves and others that it’s “very beneficial” for Russia itself to drag such a group of pro-Western citizens on the hump with a very good appetite ...
Any blackmail on the part of Belarus today completely ineffective just for the simple reason that Russia has practically nothing to lose here - and formally, and in fact we have two independent states. Any threats that “terrible zmagars” come to power instead of “pro-Russian” Lukashenko rest on the simple fact that during the Syrian-Ukrainian conflict the difference between “pro-Russian” Lukashenko and NATO Grybauskaite was not so fundamental. In general, today, according to the degree of political "usefulness" for the Kremlin, Mr. Lukashenko can be compared with Mr. Yushchenko (remember this?).
True, for all his Russophobia, Yushchenko was openly open to Putin and did not insult Russia (unlike Lukashenko). But the non-recognition of South Ossetia / Abkhazia, the open support of the Kiev junta and the supply of weapons to both the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the “Syrian opposition”, the massive Russophobic propaganda inside the country ... the non-recognition of Crimea as part of Russia. And yes, numerous contemptuous and insulting remarks about the Russian Federation. The trial of the "pro-Russian bloggers" and the extradition of a Russian citizen to Azerbaijan ...
And here there is a very inconvenient question: what is principled is the difference between “pro-Russian Lukashenko” and possible “anti-Russian-Zmagarov” rulers of sovereign Belarus? What is the difference for Russia? Lukashenko defiantly was friends with the junta at the time of the active phase of the conflict in the Donbas and immediately ran to hug Erdogan after he had shot down the Russian “drying”.
So what could be the point for Russia to spend billions on maintaining its regime and on the warm apartments of Minsk dwellers in winter? Zmagars would be friends with the junta in the same way ... although they could have digged! Before 2008, and even before 2014, the illusion was preserved that, at least, Lukashenka was "better than this pro-Western opposition." Today it is by no means obvious. Of principle there is no difference. "Pink snot" under the order about the "trenches and twinning" in the billions of dollars is clearly not pulled.
Gentlemen of Belarusians, we were so frightened by Smagars for so long that we have already ceased to fear them. In the end, the devil is not so terrible as he is painted: such a choice (for example, Mr. Drakakhrust at the head of Belarus) will certainly be accepted both in the West and in a significant part of the population of the Republic of Belarus, and Russia will finally be able to go into great pragmatism in relations with Minsk. That is to relieve yourself of these very billions of expenses. In the end, Mr. Drakokhrust (what a surname!), Like the overwhelming number of "oppov", a person is much more cultural and intelligent than the former. chairman of the state farm from Shklovsky district. That is, he will not become a “friend of Russia”, but even so frankly he will not be able to be rude (by nature, a gentle person).
And for the money he will go ... to the city, famous for its cabbages. Which is certainly not bad. Here, wondering when RB during the conflict 2011-2018. it’s not the man with the surname Lukashenko who heads, but the man with the surname Drakokhrust, I think that we wouldn’t have seen such blatant turns on bends (he is a gentle and cautious man, like most Belarusian "oppov").
Why do we need in a neighboring country support one russophobe in the fight against others? Meaning? The trouble with Lukashenka’s regime is that for Russia there isn’t much difference today about how exactly the name of the head of Belarus will sound. No longer. And Mr. Drakokhrust is interesting to the author because he was going to buy oil in Lithuania, and to replace the ruble by ... thaler. I would very much like to see all this (how a man by the name of Drakokhrust buys oil on the Lithuanian border in exchange for the newly printed Belarusian thalers).
And the problem with Lukashenka is that, over the course of a quarter of a century, our Belarusians began to perceive his presidencies as scandalous, quarrelsome and aggressive. So the trouble is that Mr. Lukashenko does not have a Belarusian national character. Because no aggression / scandal in this character is not present initially. Belarusians are peaceful people. In other words, Lukashenka got Belarusians most of all with his endless political circus.
In general, the aforesaid politician of the rules is so “great” that today even the option of a complete and final “divorce” and the coming to power in Minsk of a pro-Western oppositionist begins to seem quite a good way out. After Lukashenko any The scenario is starting to seem interesting.
- Oleg Egorov
- depositphotos.com
Information