Paul
Goble
Staunton, August 27 – Belarus has
become a test for the West and its commitment to democracy; and to date, the
West has failed that test, Liliya Shevtsova says. Instead of supporting its democratic
principles, the West has urged the Belarusian people not to do anything that
will anger Russia or risk transforming their country into another Ukraine.
Neither Russia nor the West, of course, was
ready for what has happened; but Vladimir Putin is quite prepared to back a
dictator who falsifies elections and uses force against his own people. After
all, that is what Putin has done at home and it is the kind of regime he backs abroad,
the Russian commentator says (echo.msk.ru/blog/shevtsova/2699651-echo/).
The West, however, had a chance to live up
to its calls for democracy; but instead, it has once against shown itself far
less concerned about that than about stability above all about having
reasonable relations with Moscow however authoritarian, imperialist and
bandit-like Putin’s regime is, Shevtsova continues.
The Russian commentator points out that
what is going on not only reflects “the hypocrisy of Western elites” but also
is based on the notion that all conflicts can be resolved via compromise. That
simply doesn’t work with a dictator who isn’t prepared to back down, especially
one with a nuclear power in his corner.
“The Kremlin cannot but feel satisfaction,”
Shevtsova continues, because by their actions, “the liberal democracies have
recognized a Russian sphere of influence and Belarus being part of it.” The
best the West could aspire to was an Armenian type transition in which Belarus
would become democratic but remain in Russia’s sphere of influence.
Tragically, she stresses, “Russia has
chosen a different scenario: keeping Belarus in Russia’s sphere of attract with
Lukashenka remaining in power.” It is bad enough that the Kremlin has
achieved that. What is worse is that a majority of Russians back Putin in his
support for the Belarusian strongman.
With time, Shevtsova says, “Belarus will
become a test for Moscow as well.” Will it use Russian forces against thousands
of Belarusians in the streets? Will it get
what it wants from Lukashenka or will Lukashenka continue his devious approach
of constantly shifting gears in order to survive personally? Then what?
And “where is the guarantee that
Lukashenka won’t stage a provocation on the borders with NATO countries to
which Moscow would have to respond?” Putin may sooner than he expects find
himself “the hostage of his promises to support” the incumbent Belarusian dictatorship.
“It would be strange if the Kremlin’s
support of Lukashenka did not provoke anti-Russian feelings among the Belarusians,”
she continues. “In this case, the conflict between the powers and society in
Belarus will be transformed into a geopolitical crisis when Belarusians will
cast doubt on ‘fraternal relations’ with Russia.”
More immediately, by backing Lukashenka, the
Kremlin has made itself responsible for Lukashenka’s Stalinist approach. The
West’s failure to stand up to Putin in this case may have allowed the Kremlin
leader to return to the big leagues of international politics, but he returns
as damaged goods.
And one should not write off the West
entirely. If its leaders aren’t prepared to stand up to Russian aggression,
there are many in the West who are, the Nordic-Baltic countries “plus Poland”
in the first instance. These states and peoples have more influence than many
are inclined to recognize.
With time, they may be able to move the
West; and the West, although slow to move, becomes unstoppable once it takes
action, Shevtsova says.
And she ends with the most important
question of all: “How can the Kremlin resolve the conflict between the people
and a dictator in Belarus if it can’t resolve its own conflict with the people
in Khabarovsk?” There is the dangerous possibility that “Belarus is a dress rehearsal
for the resolution of Russian problems.”
No comments:
Post a Comment