Paul
Goble
Staunton, August 17 – Had Alyaksandr
Lukashenka not been so foolish to allow an independent candidate to run against
him, he would not have suffered the humiliating loss that he has denied and
that has sparked the rising tide of protests against him and his regime,
Vladimir Pastukhov says.
But the Belarusian dictator assumed
that he could control even this situation and that having a truly independent
candidate he could defeat would help him gain support in the West and thus landed
in his current predicament, the London-based Russian scholar continues (mbk-news.appspot.com/sences/rodivshie-revolyuciyu/).
Pastukhov suggests this must have
been his motivation because Moscow doesn’t care who is in office in Belarus as
long as that individual is willing to cooperate with Putin more than with the
Western powers. But by acting as he has,
Lukashenka finds himself having lost support in the east without picking up
anything in the west.
It is far too late for Lukashenka to
correct his mistake, but what has happened does provide a powerful lesson for
Putin. The Kremlin leader will now engage in any “experiments with candidates
in 2024.” Instead, he will make sure that the only ones he will face will be “tested
agents” who will play according to his script.
The situation Lukashenka has landed
himself in and that Putin will certainly seek to avoid in the future, Pastukhov
continues, is “so classical that it even became one of the subject of the Les
Rois maudits, a series of seven historical novels by the future French
Academician, Maurice Druon.
“Had Lukashenka read [any of these French
novels] or even the Wikipedia summary, then possibly the Belarusian revolution
would not have taken place this time.” He could have structured the election so
that he would really have gotten more votes than his opponents, but that would
have undercut his approach to the West even if it had no impact on Moscow.
Focusing on his geopolitical
concerns, Lukashenka fundamentally miscalculated about the nature of Belarus
itself. He certainly believed that “in traditionalist Belarusian society, under
conditions of the splits within the protesting elites where ever more they
fight with each other rather than Lukashenka,” Tikhanovskaya wouldn’t have a
chance.
“But things turned out differently.
Her weakness turned out to be her strength,” Pastukhov argues. “None of the
fractious factions of the Belarusian opposition saw her as a real competitor
over the long term and therefore the opposition easily and quickly united under
this brand.”
According to the Russian analyst, “Lukashenka
himself threw into the saturated solution” that Belarus is today “the catalyst
for a revolution. He did this on his own initiative and because of his own stupidity. He gave the masses that very trigger without
which no revolution could have taken place.”
No comments:
Post a Comment