Paul
Goble
Staunton, May 6 – Because Vladimir
Putin has been behind Moscow’s aggressive approach toward Ukraine and Belarus,
many assume that his removal would open the way for the return of Crimea to
Ukraine and the solidification of Belarusian independence; but they are wrong,
Andrey Sannikov says.
A post-Putin regime won’t return
Crimea although it might limit its military actions in the Donbass at least for
a time, and it won’t end its pursuit of the absorption of Belarus, the head of
the opposition European Belarus campaign says. Indeed, it might even increase
its efforts in that direction (ru.krymr.com/a/sudba-kryma-budet-zaviset-ot-tverdosti-zapada-belorusskij-politik/30593506.html).
The reasons for such conclusions,
Sannikov suggests, lie in the nature of the Russian regime Putin has
established, the approach of the governments in Minsk and Kyiv, and the weakness
of a West which will almost certainly be satisfied by Russian promises Moscow
will not keep rather than demanding fundamental changes in its behavior.
A palace coup is “completely
possible” in both Belarus and in Russia, he says. “In Belarus, if Lukashenka
were removed, the entire system would collapse. [But] in Russia, there exists a
system of power which the special services run, and Putin is a creature of the
special services.”
“His leadership ever more recalls a
classic FSB legend, and the FSB which created this legend is capable of
removing him” not because of his weakness or illogical actions but rather
because “for a long time, he has not had any success,” Sannikov argues.
“One should not forget that the
Putin system began its effective functioning precisely by relying on the West,
that is, by penetrating Western strategic centers and destroying them, imposing
on them its own agenda, receiving money from them, and in turn investing ever
more money in the purchase of luxury items them.”
“In a word,” Sannikov says, “’the
elites’ destroyed their own country in order to live well abroad.”
From the perspective of those who
backed his rise, Putin’s conflict with the West has gotten in the way of their
goals which are more wealth for themselves and more opportunities to live well
in the West. They would like to restore
those possibilities, although Sannikov says he is anything but optimistic that
they would radically change policies toward Ukraine and Belarus.
The reason for that is that they don’t
need to actually change Russia’s actions but simply make empty promises. “The
West is weak and ready to believe any promises Moscow makes without waiting for
any practical steps to confirm these promises.”
The FSB recognizes this and so has no reason to retreat from its
positions in Russia’s western neighbors.
Moreover, Kyiv and Minsk are not
taking a hard line against Moscow. Yet another prisoner exchange has taken
place between Russia and Ukraine and still there was no mention of Crimea.
Consequently, the most anyone can hope for in the Ukrainian direction is a
reduction in military action in the Donbass but not in the return of the
peninsula to Kyiv’s control.
As far as Belarus is concerned,
Sannikov says, Lukashenka recognizes the Kremlin’s current weakness and thus
feels free to criticize it, but he “all the same dreams about a seat in the Kremlin
himself and therefore uses every chance to show his superiority over Putin” in
the hopes that the stars will fall on him.
Consequently, in the event of a
palace coup in Moscow by the FSB, “the threat of ‘a creeping annexation’ of
Belarus will be even higher than today.” The chekists won’t put up with
Lukashenka’s games as long as Putin has, and both he and Belarus will be very
likely at risk as well.
According to Sannikov, what happens in both
Ukraine and Belarus will depend in large measure on the West and its readiness
to demand “respect for international law, an end to Moscow’s aggressive policy,
and free elections.” If such demands are not insisted upon, “even after Putin’s
exit one shouldn’t expect serious changes in the Kremlin’s foreign policy.”
No comments:
Post a Comment